[HN Gopher] China completes green belt around Taklamakan Desert
___________________________________________________________________
China completes green belt around Taklamakan Desert
Author : uprootdev
Score : 148 points
Date : 2024-12-08 15:51 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sand-boarding.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (sand-boarding.com)
| bloopernova wrote:
| It took 46 years to create the 1,900 mile, ~3060 km green belt
| around the 130,350 square miles (337,600 km2) desert. The linked
| article doesn't say anything about negatives, but the positives
| seem to be very beneficial for the area.
|
| I really wish other major powers would commit to similar
| projects. In my opinion, communities need larger goals to strive
| towards, to provide a sense of continued belonging and
| reinvestment for the future.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _other major powers would commit to similar projects_
|
| There is African Union's "Great Green Wall (for the Sahara and
| the Sahel)" initiative, the 8000x15km wall of trees to stop
| desertification of the Sahel from the Sahara.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa)
|
| https://www.sciencenews.org/article/africa-great-green-wall-...
| xbmcuser wrote:
| This a good video to show some of what they are doing.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbBdIG--b58
| einpoklum wrote:
| Note that if you follow the maps links at the bottom of the
| video, you'll see that the areas covered are tiny compared
| to the area necessary. The promotional videos which are
| presented with government sponsorship and supervision look
| great, but - is this project actually seriously progressing
| across the continent?
| abeppu wrote:
| I've sometimes wondered whether arid parts of the American
| Southwest could, through the right kind of permaculture
| interventions, support more biological carbon sequestration,
| more plant life, drive development of richer soil etc. But I
| suspect if you said "we're gonna use this big section of BLM
| land to incrementally try to keep water in the landscape, and
| introduce a sequence of plant species that can increase carbon
| storage and soil cover" the immediate American political
| response would be "government overreach!" on one side and "what
| about threatened species X that thrives in the sparse desert?"
| on the other. And if you did get such a project approved, some
| elaborate supply chain would arise to provide plant seedlings
| at 10x the normal price and a consulting firm would be brought
| in for k million for a plan to administer the project, and the
| ratio of humans getting paid for the project to acres worked
| would be inexplicably high.
| just_1_comment wrote:
| I agree that theres no hope of such a project ever happening
| in the USA unless it's on private land, and even then
| _someone_ is going to object and sue to stop it for some
| shortsighted and probably selfish reason.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| That's kind of the point of democratic institutions, though:
| centralizing a lot of these directive powers leads to
| explosive efficiencies at the cost of liberty to, for
| example, surface objections as you illustrate. Or, more
| dramatically, throwing people who object into dark cells.
|
| That's how autocratic regimes can take on megaprojects
| without a lot of the red tape that leads to, for example, a
| paralytically slow rollout of Seattle light rail.
|
| You choose your poison.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Wouldn't you say the US is somewhat of an outlier w.r.t.
| government ability to undertake significant infrastructural
| projects?
| emptysongglass wrote:
| As someone who has lived pretty firmly in both parts of
| the West: no, not really.
|
| Denmark, where I live now, has the luxury of commanding
| massive taxes from its citizens to finance its projects,
| all while putting a pittance of its share to its
| military. Denmark is also much, much, smaller than the US
| so the red tape that would be apparent at the size of the
| US is less apparent at the size of 6 million people.
|
| We also overspend on grotesque, predatory contracting
| firms, just as the US does, to finance our public
| projects.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > Denmark, where I live now, has the luxury of commanding
| massive taxes from its citizens to finance its projects,
|
| Well, so does the US - which is also able to do defict-
| spending much more easily due to the USD's role as a
| global reserve currency. But as you've pointed out, a
| huge part of it feeds the military-industrial complex -
| and that's a part (but not nearly the most important
| part) of how it struggles to expend on public
| infrastructure. Also, red tape is mostly not a per-capita
| thing; that kind of red tape is mostly in distributed
| execution rather than decision-making, legislation and
| such.
|
| But point taken regarding Danish overspending on
| predatory contractors.
| ainiriand wrote:
| You cannot choose much poison either in one side.
| oivey wrote:
| This isn't the traditional thought process on this topic.
| Traditionally, it was thought that the ills of resource
| allocation under democracy were far outweighed by the
| automatic optimization of the free market. The Soviets did
| a lot to suggest that the free market was actually better
| than central planning.
|
| China is showing that with 21st century needs,
| technologies, and planning that may no longer be the case.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| Right, but I wasn't referring to old thought processes. I
| was referring to current.
| lucianbr wrote:
| Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free
| market with the government intervening whenever and
| wherever it feels like.
|
| They still get some optimization _and_ some otherwise-
| impossible-projects. I 'd say the jury is still out on
| this strategy.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Looks like China is attempting a hybrid approach. Free
| market with the government intervening whenever and
| wherever it feels like.
|
| A caveat I'd add is that the Chinese government is
| subjective to the party. China's accomplishments are
| significant but they tend to be secondary to the
| political wellbeing of the CCP.
|
| That wellbeing is secured though the harsh and thorough
| quashing of dissent.
|
| I'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects
| seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| > _I 'd criticize China but CCP's most repressive aspects
| seem to be finding widespread appeal here in the US._
|
| And so does Russia, which is another effective repressive
| dictatorship. From my perspective, they're just
| exceptionally adapt at pushing their propaganda abroad.
|
| Historically, the USA was the only one doing that, but
| it's no longer the only player. (To be clear, I meant
| spreading propaganda abroad. The USA is at least
| currently not a repressive dictatorship. And I doubt it
| will become so before I die.)
| vkou wrote:
| It's real wealth and productivity growth has dramatically
| outpaced peer nations over the last 40 years.
|
| How much longer will the jury be out? Will it come back
| in my lifetime?
| svara wrote:
| Yeah, it's going to come out in the next 10 years or so,
| 20 at most.
|
| The question is whether the Chinese economy will take a
| similar trajectory now to the Japanese one in the late
| eighties and through the nineties, with a period of
| extreme growth followed by mostly stagnation.
|
| It could very well be that the Chinese model is good at
| catch-up growth so to speak, up to the level of an
| advanced economy.
|
| I agree with the op that the jury is out on this and it
| might go different ways.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > China is showing that with 21st century needs,
| technologies, and planning that may no longer be the
| case.
|
| maybe. a considerable number of chinese projects are very
| flashy and the planning doesn't take into account upkeep.
| a good example is country gardens forest city:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_City,_Johor
| ben_w wrote:
| What I've heard -- and I don't claim any real expertise
| -- is that the city was built by a significant amount of
| private money and certainly private companies, and what
| made the city fail was several different governments all
| deciding that they didn't want this sort of thing,
| specifically China wanting houses to _not_ be investments
| and restricting how much money Chinese citizens could
| take out of the country, while Malaysia started off in
| favour of it but then decided that "foreigners" (which
| in the face of Forest City would have been Chinese)
| shouldn't be buying up housing in Malaysia.
|
| That's not really a sign of central planning failure, any
| more than, say, California City -- failure, sure, but not
| due to what distinguishes economic central planning from
| capitalist diversity's self-balancing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Centrally planning a project is not bad and it was not
| bad even in USSR. What usually goes wrong is the
| implementation, where lack of ownership and widespread
| corruption makes the resource utilization perform pretty
| bad.
|
| Socialist or Communist countries did some good projects,
| I saw quite a lot. Implementation, management and long
| term operation went bad.
| Aloisius wrote:
| A good plan is one that can be executed. Assuming no
| corruption where widespread corruption exists is a
| failure in planning.
| jonstewart wrote:
| Maybe, but China has also poured so much capital into
| infrastructure projects that don't deliver ROI. This has
| harmed their longterm growth. We didn't do enough when
| interest rates were low and we have a hard time with
| complicated projects, but China isn't perfect at this,
| either.
|
| Also they march people out into fields and execute them
| at point blank range. Worth keeping in mind.
| okasaki wrote:
| China isn't autocratic. That's just cope.
| abeppu wrote:
| > That's kind of the point of democratic institutions
|
| I think the problem is that American "democracy" is
| frequently undemocratic. If a clear majority of voters
| support a project or policy, it may still be blocked
| through various political/legal/regulatory means.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > If a clear majority of voters support a project or
| policy
|
| thing is, projects run into reality. if a majority voted
| to build the starship enterprise today would it make
| sense to do it just because a majority wanted it
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Healthcare access isn't sci-fi
| redeeman wrote:
| heres a radical thought, if a group of people, be it 2, 5
| og 250 million wants to build the starship enterprise,
| how about we say "sounds fun, have at it", and let them
| mind their own business? and in this pristine new
| reality, how about we DONT let them put their grubby fat
| hands into the remaining peoples pockets to fund it? In
| exchange, when the naysayers to the enterprise projects
| wants to make something, the enterprise fans will also
| not loot pockets.
|
| Now we have utopia
| mistermann wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_
| w...
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Probably a lot easier to just cut down all the trees in the
| midwest and throw them into a deep ocean trench every few
| years than to go up against the activation energy you will
| face converting a desert environment into something
| presumably more wet and less hot. This isn't Arrakis.
| cassepipe wrote:
| Can you explain the tree-cutting rationale ? Wouldn't
| cutting all the trees have a masse effect that would lead
| to desertification ? i.e. can you pitch me your project :)
| ?
| toast0 wrote:
| Have you seen a lot that's been clear cut right after and
| then after 5/10/20 years? They've got some near me where
| they cut adjacent lots every so often and they're on a
| cycle to do it again after whatever the interval is.
|
| If you cut the whole thing down at once, yeah, maybe it
| won't come back. But if you do a reasonable section, it
| comes back alright.
|
| So, current management practices are only cut down what
| you need to produce lumber and other wood products and
| wood adjacent stuff; plus the extras that get cut and
| don't make it to the mill whatever.
|
| I think the proposal is to cut more, and drop them off
| into deep ocean where they won't decompose much. As trees
| grow, they turn environmental carbon dioxide (and other
| inputs) into wood, but an established forest is mostly
| steady state in carbon dioxide... cutting it down and
| depositing it into the ocean is a way to keep the
| existing carbon dioxide as wood and turn more carbon
| dioxide into new wood.
| otikik wrote:
| > drop them off into deep ocean where they won't
| decompose muc
|
| I'm sure that won't come with any unintended consequences
| kbelder wrote:
| It's where oil comes from that caused the CO2 that the
| trees are collecting; it's just closing the cycle.
| toast0 wrote:
| Probably will spark a bubble in deep sea distressed wood
| salvage operations when that becomes feasible.
|
| Logs that long ago got stuck on river bottoms on the way
| to mills are pretty valuable now if they're in good
| shape.
| hirsin wrote:
| Is that just because they're old trees, which are
| stronger than the fast farmed ones we get today?
| mistermann wrote:
| >response would be "government overreach!" on one side and
| "what about threatened species X that thrives in the sparse
| desert?" on the other. And if you did get such a project
| approved
|
| Maybe what is needed is a project to teach people how to
| think without making unforced errors.
|
| > some elaborate supply chain would arise to provide plant
| seedlings at 10x the normal price
|
| The beauty of it is, this one stone could kill many birds,
| even giant ones like this.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I don't think this would be a good idea... these areas are
| not the result of desertification but are naturally desert
| ecosystems. The only way to make them anything else would be
| to take even more water from bordering non desert areas,
| which are already severely impacted by all of the water taken
| to support huge cities and green lawns in the southwest
| deserts.
|
| For carbon storage it would make more sense to regrow forest
| in places that naturally have water and soil that support
| forest.
| youngtaff wrote:
| Plenty of places have water even Tucson
|
| https://youtu.be/I2xDZlpInik
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _wish other major powers would commit to similar projects_
|
| American engineering around the Mississippi River is massive.
| As is our hydroelectric engineering, and reclamation of urban
| and farm land. We don't really have a lot of fucked territory
| that needs to be terraformed.
| maxglute wrote:
| IMO Missippi shipping good example of lack of commitment. Low
| water levels already curtailing barge activity. It's a
| massive effort, but not really sufficient.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not really sufficient_
|
| Our barge use is crippled by the Jones Act, not water
| levels. Make it lucrative to ship by barge and the
| incentives will get the levels back up.
| maxglute wrote:
| Making shipping lucrative (which US should) can further
| increase utilization. Issue with Missippi traffic is
| existing shipping, i.e. those that operate under Jones,
| are already crippled by reduced water levels as result of
| heat/drought/climate change. So it's a water level issue,
| which translates infra commitment issue... not unlike the
| green belt. Climate change means you have to invest more
| just to stand still.
|
| E: Like don't get me wrong, internal waterways is a
| geographic blessing for US, but it also always required
| enormous/expensive (army) engineering efforts to keep it
| viable for modern operations (larger barges etc). It's
| one of those case where terraforming/technology has
| outstripped natural capacity, but it's possible to
| augment geography to facilitate more technology, but
| right now augmentation efforts are not sufficient, not
| just to improve through put, but to maintain it, because
| geography can decline.
| cassepipe wrote:
| I didn't know about the Jones Act
|
| """ It requires that all goods transported by water
| between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been
| constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S.
| flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S.
| citizens and U.S. permanent residents """
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Some stories I heard while living in China. A couple of decades
| ago farmers in china's arid regions used to be tasked with
| planting trees, they would plant them upside down because they
| knew they didn't have enough water to feed the trees and their
| crops. The Gobi was planted with trees a few times to reduce
| dust storms, but it takes a lot more than just planting trees,
| so the dust storms would always invariably return as the trees
| died out. There also used to be a graduation requirement that
| all students plant trees to graduate, they had farms dedicated
| to this, and they would dig out the trees planted by the last
| class so the next class could re-plant them.
|
| I have no idea how effective today's efforts are compared to
| efforts of the past. They could have solved the water problem
| with irrigation or are using more drought resistant trees. It
| could be that the green belt is going to stick around this
| time, if the experience is different from the Gobi experience
| somehow.
| otikik wrote:
| > they would plant them upside down
|
| That makes no sense. It takes more effort to plant a tree
| upside down and not irrigating it than it takes to plant it
| the regular way and not irrigating it.
| wqnt wrote:
| Maybe if the trees are planted correctly and are still
| alive, the government would requires the farmers to water
| them or face punishment, leaving no water for the crops.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They didn't want the trees to suck up limited water, but
| wanted to still say they planted the trees. My guess is
| that ground water and run off was involved, they weren't
| going to irrigate it either way because they couldn't.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| One of the reasons for the decline of the Ottoman Empire was
| that sultans spent precious labor and resources on grand
| projects like this, for example around the Arabian peninsula as
| well as the Sahara. This ended up contributing to the
| bankrupting of the empire, which required them to take heftier
| and heftier loans from Europe and Russia.
| vondur wrote:
| The Ottomans taking loans from the Russians, their
| traditional enemy, seems odd. I know they were reluctant
| allies when fighting Napoleon, but I've never heard of such a
| financial arrangement.
| mlinksva wrote:
| I'd enjoy reading if you have any pointers to such projects.
| Not coming up with any from web search and asking a LLM.
| Closest might be the Hijaz Railway and maintaining a large
| military presence in desert regions.
| timoth3y wrote:
| The US "Shelterbelt" project in the 1930s in response to the
| dustbowl was of a similar vein. It involved planting over 220
| million trees.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Shelterbelt
| renewiltord wrote:
| Absolutely horrible. They've ruined the desert ecosystem by
| terraforming. Thankfully, in the US we have NEPA and various
| state laws to save us from making the world a greener place where
| God or our ancestors 50 years ago have made it otherwise.
| yazzku wrote:
| Unlike when God slaughtered several million bison, right?
| https://allthatsinteresting.com/buffalo-slaughter
| renewiltord wrote:
| That's the second clause. Anything after 50 years ago
| interferes with the environment. Even returning things to
| before that time interferes with the environment. That's the
| cutoff date I'm afraid.
| yazzku wrote:
| Ah, right, the 50-year cut-off makes a lot of sense, circa
| Exxon Mobil deciding to engage in the largest terraforming
| experiment done on Earth for profit despite its own
| knowledge of the consequences. That makes total sense; God
| created Exxon Mobil, and anything we do to challenge it is
| interfering with God's fine handiwork.
|
| Let me prepare the school curricula for next calendar year.
| renewiltord wrote:
| NEPA was passed about then and most people would prefer
| it stay, so yeah, it makes sense. It's why we don't have
| environmental review for I-5 but we do for new bike
| lanes. I-5 was already decided in the 1960s so the
| construction was okay. But bike lanes are today and need
| extensive environmental review, as any environmentalist
| will tell you.
| coryrc wrote:
| I'm sorry people don't get your comment. Maybe people aren't
| aware of the consequences of laws locking in car-based
| infrastructure.
| jmyeet wrote:
| China may well have replaced the USSR as the latest bogeyman to
| keep attention away from whatever war crimes the US is currently
| supporting or committing, but all I can think about is the ~$10T
| spent on and millions of lives lost to the "War on Terror" and
| what could've been done with the money instead.
|
| I mean just look at the high speed rail transformation in 16
| years [1].
|
| China is not without its issues but neither is the US government
| and at least China is investing in long-term infrastructure for
| their people. Chinese foreign policy is also considerably less
| damaging than American foreign policy.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/xszhbm/chinese_hig...
| baserev wrote:
| China has built 30,000 miles of high speed rails it doesn't
| need [1], going into $1 trillion of debt and other liabilities.
| Just keeping up with its debt requires $25 billion annually.
| Incidentally, Chinese local governments are now $11 trillion in
| debt [2], with all provinces except Shanghai in 2023 being
| positive on revenues. And now there are around 4000 ghost
| railway stations [3]
|
| [1]: https://www.wsj.com/world/china/xi-high-speed-trains-
| china-3... [2]: https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-economy-
| debt-borrowing... [3]:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhclmurNUuw
| BadHumans wrote:
| What does this have to do with anything?
| jddj wrote:
| Is 25B in interest expenses extreme here?
|
| Edit: oh just for the rail costs
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| jmyeet mentioned building rails, and baserev makes a
| counterargument, that it isn't necessarily a good
| "investment".
| maxglute wrote:
| Counterargument based on retarded data. There's only
| ~1000 HSR stations with ~30 considered ghost, ~3%. It's
| not a good investment, it's a great investment. It's
| already profitable. Utilization is increasing YoY. All
| for ~1T over 20 years. Put it this way, US excessive
| health spending (~5% over OECD average works out to 2T/5T
| per year), PRC got entire HSR network for 6 months of
| excessive US health care spending that still delivers
| less life expectancy than PRC. This isn't even mentioning
| the 100s of billions PRC is saving not buying US/EU
| aviation or importing fuel. It's literally converting
| steel and concrete into forever import savings, and it's
| doing on the cheap while labour prices were (are) low -
| that blue collar cohort is only going to decrease with
| time. Better to build as much as possible now.
|
| This is not to mention HSR is basically ONLY option for
| mass fast intercity travel within PRC... 1.3B people
| squeezed in populated area 1/3 size of CONUS = too much
| air cooridor congestion. There's literally no other
| option than HSR. Like air travel isn't going to make
| Chinese New Year happen.
| baserev wrote:
| Citations please
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| For context, 1 trillion US Dollars is about 50% of the
| cost of the Iraq War.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| In WSJ article
|
| > China State Railway's liabilities grew to a record of about
| $860 billion as of September
|
| Meanwhile it's about same as US military spending in one
| fiscal year.
|
| I'd rather wasting money on things I don't need, rather than
| kill others.
| maxglute wrote:
| >4000 ghost railway stations
|
| lol wut. There are ~5000 rail way stations TOTAL, ~1000 HSR,
| of which ~30 are considered ghost, i.e. 3% wasted stations on
| size of PRC network is stupid efficient. The system is
| generating positive profit with increasing utilization, hence
| expansion.
| baserev wrote:
| Citations please
| maxglute wrote:
| Sorry, not doing homework/playing this game for someone
| that posts FLQ media.
|
| This is basic 101 level googlable information.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| > China has built 30,000 miles of high speed rails it doesn't
| need
|
| That's a ridiculous statement. High-speed rail is extremely
| heavily used in China (3 billion trips in 2023).
|
| This is like dismissing the US interstate highway system as a
| useless vanity project. HSR is a heavily used, central part
| of China's transportation infrastructure that has made
| getting between major Chinese cities way easier, faster and
| more comfortable than it used to be.
| mnau wrote:
| National security angle is also often overlooked. China is
| not self sufficient in airplane manufacturing. Not now and
| back then it was only a plan.
|
| What would they do in case of airplane export ban? They
| could keep existing ones airworthy, but transport capacity
| would be capped.
|
| High speed trains are a viable alternative to airplanes.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| China has the C919 (equivalent to a Boeing 737 or A320),
| which still relies on imported engines, but the country
| is also developing its own jet engines for commercial
| use. They would accelerate those efforts if there were an
| export ban.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Except for a couple of lines that connect the megacities of
| Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, most Chinese HSR
| lines operate below capacity and at a great loss.
|
| The bulk of the rail built in the last decade was to
| distant poorer regions who simply aren't willing to pay for
| faster transit.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| wow, red scare capitalist propaganda from wsj.
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| > China is not without its issues but neither is the US
| government and at least China is investing in long-term
| infrastructure for their people.
|
| Do you claim USA doesn't invest in long-term infrastructure?
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| >Do you claim USA doesn't invest in long-term infrastructure?
|
| Do you have any examples of where it has invested in long-
| term infrastructure? I ask, because I can't think of any,
| beyond 'roads'.
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| When I think of infrastructure investments, I always think
| of long-term stuff, rather than, I don't know, a temporary
| detour.
|
| And pretty much every functioning state makes
| infrastructure investments, otherwise it wouldn't be
| functioning.
|
| So it it surprising to me someone would even question any
| big country's investing in infrastructure at all...
|
| For example here's an announcement from dep of
| transportation:
|
| https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-
| ad...
|
| There's roads (including bridges), but also railroads and
| port expansions.
|
| Also:
|
| - Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Management Project
|
| - Ecosystem Restoration in the Upper Mississippi River
|
| - Reactor Demonstration Program in Kemmerer, Wyoming
|
| The information is there, easily accessible on the
| Internet, you didn't need to ask me.
| sophacles wrote:
| There's plenty:
|
| The us army corps of engineers has been working on
| waterways for a very very long time. Their projects allow
| huge swaths of rivers stay navigable, provide irrigation
| and/or flood control, and so on. There are huge swathes of
| farmland that are able to provide a stable and steady
| supply of food as a result of htis effort.
|
| TVA and Bonneville are government infrastructure programs
| that provide millions of people with hydroelectric power,
| and broader grid stability as a result of the infrastucrue
| they put in. Not to mention rural electrification via
| special welfare programs for farmers - the tax for that is
| listed as a line item in your electric bill.
|
| The telecom system (including the Internet) is the result
| of government investment - in the form of: special taxes
| that city folk pay for rural folks access, research
| investment, direct research in various agencies, investment
| in cables being installed (for example - billions in grants
| were given to AT&T, verizon, et al to upgrade trunk and
| last mile lines to fiber), foreign policy to allow open
| communications and standards, and adoption by the military
| and other large agencies.
|
| A whole bunch more too in the form of setting standards and
| providing grants to state and local governments to meet
| those standards (education, water and sewage systems, rail
| infrastructure, farm subsidies, crop and flood insurance,
| and so on) - some of these are more infrastructury than
| others, but included because (e.g.) having stable farms
| leads food security and therefore social stability and is
| kinda necessary for the rest to matter.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >China is not without its issues
|
| That is a bit of an understatement, isn't it?
| https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/china/ch...
| NemoNobody wrote:
| What about all the Dreamers? Have you heard??
|
| Yeah so, all the brown people that arrived in the United
| States as children when their parents "illegally" immigrated
| but have lived their entire adult lives here, have families
| here, have their jobs here and their cultural identity can
| literally only be American - also those "immigrants" (whose
| fate was also decided when I was is high school btw) we
| apparently are planning on the full scale removal of them
| from our society.
|
| I've had people tell me "their kids won't save them anymore
| either" bc you kno, all the anchor babies. Literally happy
| about families being torn apart. That's a line the American
| people have crossed, not just our government.
|
| Forced mass removal of minority population - where do you
| think they will end up if anything goes wrong between their
| arrest and deportation to somewhere that has no reason to
| claim them? I don't know how people can't see just how
| problematic this planning is.
|
| Does this sound American? How high a horse will we ride after
| the bus loads of people whose lives we've upended for
| nothing?
|
| We have a population replacement problem, er - well the world
| does really. People are exponentially valuable - the very
| definition of invaluable even. People provide for practically
| limitless potential with time and future generations
| considered. Money spent on immigrants is money very well
| spent if making money is the goal. Our goal is a color tho -
| well, more like a shade or an absence of color...
|
| We have problems also. Our problems do not justify theirs and
| neither do their justify ours, that's not what I'm saying. We
| are all fucked up.
|
| Rn tho - we should prolly just focus on our own stuff and
| thangs for the foreseeable future.
|
| America 1st and whatnot.
|
| Sry, I kno you didn't mean to overlook our issues with
| minorities rn and you were correct even but far too many
| people have shed tears to me about Ukraine and Israel and
| everywhere but here so much so that I just can't anymore.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Maybe we should have figured out a defense justification for
| high speed rail. That's the justification for the interstate
| highway effort at least initially. Have to move tanks and APCs
| when shit hits the fan. HSR on the other hand has no advocate.
| You have the few people who nerd out about it standing against
| the profitable status quo with most people not really caring.
| cassepipe wrote:
| The U.S need to spend a ton to defend their "imperium" even
| though it is a bit different from how empires have worked in
| history. If it doesn't another country will take place and
| assume leadership of the world. The nice thing about the Pax
| Americana is that it is based on voluntary alliances that
| benefit from the relationship and more neutral third-party that
| are not punished for their neutrality (and thus are not
| available as allies against the leading coalition). So much so
| that you can count on your fingers the states that actually
| want to change the world order : Russia, Iran, China and North
| Korea and they are not even great allies to each other. So the
| status quo coalition is running the world and it's a good thing
| for the world. Interstate anarchy is a state of constant war
| and is awful for everyone.
|
| Now you will say oh yeah but what about the war in Iraq. The
| thing is that it happened when US power was uncontested. It was
| a mistake in the sense that it has undermined the rules of the
| order it was supposed to guarantee. But nothing we should not
| be surprised that unchecked power is bad. Now that China is a
| (the only) real competitor with the U.S, the U.S actually has
| to be a good leader for the status quo coalition it gets its
| prosperity from. The equilibrium between leader and aspirant
| leader is good, let's hope it stays like that.
| jmyeet wrote:
| This smacks of "we need to commit war crimes because
| otherwise somebody else will commit war crimes". Theoretical
| atrocities are never justification for actual atrocities.
|
| The "voluntary alliances" you speak of are basically the US,
| Canada, Australia and Europe. Africa, the Middle East and
| Asia didn't sign up for the absolute devastation we've
| inflicted on them, first with "normal" colonialism, now with
| economic colonialism.
|
| I once heard it described that US foreign policy is to loot
| the Global South and US domestic policy is to divide up the
| spoils. We aren't the only perpetrators (eg [1]) but we
| certainly use sanctions and the IMF and World Bank to bully
| countries to our way of thinking. And that's before we even
| get started on all the coups the US has instigated,
| supported, backed and/or planned.
|
| [1]: https://tehrantimes.com/news/489452/How-West-Africa-s-
| econom...
| throw310822 wrote:
| > Theoretical atrocities are never justification for actual
| atrocities.
|
| If only that were true...
| instig007 wrote:
| > The nice thing about the Pax Americana is that it is based
| on voluntary alliances that benefit from the relationship and
| more neutral third-party that are not punished for their
| neutrality
|
| Talk the talk
|
| "Trump threatens 100% tariff on Brics nations if they try to
| replace dollar" [1]
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrwj0p2dd9o
| skybrian wrote:
| I wonder whether this is working, as far as preventing
| desertification goes. The project has critics. It might just the
| state declaring victory?
|
| Edit: apparently it's controversial.
|
| Will China's "green Great Wall" save it from encroaching sands?
|
| https://www.economist.com/china/2024/12/05/will-chinas-green...
|
| https://archive.is/FVimm
| nyclounge wrote:
| That is probably why China is doing weather modification:
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/asia/china-weather-modificati...
|
| However people in India may have something concerns:
|
| https://www.downtoearth.org.in/science-technology/-weather-m...
|
| Yeah we are like kids playing match sticks!!! Just because we
| can, we shouldn't just do it!
| maxglute wrote:
| Sandstorm days in BJ went from ~30s per year in 50s to single
| digits post 2000s. It's working, but sandstorm days also
| picking back up due to climate change (also increasing floods
| and other enviroment disasters), so more accurately to suggest
| it's mitigating.
| mnau wrote:
| Every project has critics, but it is better to light a candle
| than to curse the darkness. See the man, the wife, the donkey,
| and the critics.
|
| Yes, it's possible it will not deliver, but this seems to be
| classic way to combat desertification. Africa uses similar
| approach for Sahara.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Meanwhile the US uses it surpluses of wealth to do... what?
|
| Optimize ad sales to 16 year olds and fund genocide in Gaza?
| baserev wrote:
| Support Ukraine against invasion from Russia. Support Taiwan
| against invasion from China. Investing in reusable rockets,
| pushing humanity out into space. Supporting new technologies
| like augmented reality, AI, satellite internet, self driving.
| devinrf wrote:
| Keep in mind China puts their money in these things too!
| Except they're on the opposite side and maybe spend a bit
| less on the military
| gmuslera wrote:
| Don't forget bailing out banks that fueled bubbles. With the
| money that went into that we could had by now a the Sahara
| rainforest.
| pmalynin wrote:
| Have you actually looked into "bailing out banks" (which is
| called Troubled Asset Relief Program), because if you have
| you would have learned that the US Government actually made
| ~$15 billion in profit after selling off the toxic assets 6
| years later. Not to mention the money the government made
| thru preferred stock repurchase by corporations and other
| things (interest etc) the US Treasury booked a total profit
| of ~$121 billion.
|
| Sorry for calling you out but I'm just very tired of purely
| emotional responses to this topic because people actually
| just refuse to go thru the facts of how events transpired and
| their consequences.
|
| EDIT: You can see this for yourself from ProPublica
| https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
| youngtaff wrote:
| Yes, the US government did make a profit on those assets
| but what did the bailing out the banks cost everyone else?
| Yeul wrote:
| I have always wondered why the US doesn't use the trillion
| dollar deficit to fund healthcare for all.
|
| Republicans always find money for more tax cuts but never
| social security...
| soneca wrote:
| > _"The initiative combines solar-powered sand-blocking
| technology with extensive vegetation planting to stabilize the
| desert's edges."_
|
| What sand-blocking tech is that? Does anyone know?
| zhaohan_dong wrote:
| I think they put solar panels up and plant some bushes under
| the shade
| photochemsyn wrote:
| They might be referring to dependence on solar-powered water
| pumps to irrigate the green belt, or the use of a field of
| solar panels with vegetation underneath to break up wind-driven
| sand migration. Another source discusses the construction of
| meter-high earthen walls, though its unclear how widely that
| was done. They're planning on building more solar and wind
| there, and China's UHV (ultra-high-voltage) grid will allow
| that power to be shipped east to where demand is highest:
|
| https://interestingengineering.com/energy/chinas-largest-des...
|
| > "Further energy development is underway in the Taklamakan
| Desert. The China Three Gorges Corporation plans to build a
| massive energy project featuring 8.5 gigawatts of solar power
| and 4 gigawatts of wind energy, expected to be completed in
| four years."
| RaftPeople wrote:
| I'm not sure if it applies here but I read an article about
| similar efforts in Africa and their technique was shaping the
| sand into little hills and then adding the vegetation to retain
| the little hill which reduced the flow of sand shifting due to
| wind.
| fovc wrote:
| Plants
| asdf123qweasd wrote:
| Shouldn't you be able to see that on sattelit pictures?
| mnau wrote:
| It's visible. Start at Taklamakan Desert Highway and go along
| it.
|
| TBH, I would like to know how much water it take to grow trees
| around the highway through middle of desert, but that is for
| another topic.
| maxglute wrote:
| They use drought resistant / low water plants, bunch of
| retainment strategies (membranes, local rainfall water
| storage). IIRC still need to truck/pipeline/drip irrigate
| some water when plants initially growing (more water hungry),
| but the goal is to pick right plants that can survive on
| local conditions.
| mnau wrote:
| Yeah, I have read a lot about the plants, Populus
| Euphratica, and a lot of others, but it still...
|
| There just isn't enough rainfall. Annual average
| precipitation in the Taklimakan Desert is less than 100
| millimeters. With drip irrigation, they can probably keep
| at it at reasonable expense, but that place is horrid. Just
| look at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuylRKAK1Tc
| maxglute wrote:
| IIRC ~40% is in arid regions, rest in semi arid or better
| regions. I think in arid regions they'd prioritized
| desert margins with 100-200 mm rain. <100mm is extreme
| arid zones, i.e. central Takilmakan. I'm not sure if
| they'd even bother with that.
| vondur wrote:
| I can't really tell from the satellite photos. Looks like
| there is a river with some agricultural fields and green
| stuff next to it.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| This is mostly a distraction. The CCP puts out lots of propaganda
| on social media and state controlled news to brag about this
| achievement. But it's mostly a distraction from massive economic
| issues, unemployment, geopolitical isolation, ghost cities, high
| speed rail that is falling apart, etc. Only time will tell if
| this project actually does anything much to contain
| desertification. I doubt it will without significant water
| distribution, which has its own problems.
| DanTheManPR wrote:
| Is Chinese high speed rail infrastructure really substandard or
| lacking maintenance as you claim?
| ilamont wrote:
| I've been to Turpan and the Tarim Basin area, which is on the
| northeast edge of the desert. It's the only place I've witnessed
| a sandstorm, and it's very hot ... local people told me not to
| leave rented bikes parked in sunlight as the tires were at risk
| of bursting.
|
| Many centuries ago, local Uyghur people developed ingenious
| mechanisms to channel snowmelt from the northern mountains for
| irrigation ... basically covered stone channels that stretch for
| thousands of miles and enable crops like grapes and melons to be
| grown. In Turpan itself, grape trellises are grown over many
| sidewalks which cools pedestrians and looks quite nice.
| mlinksva wrote:
| Very interesting topic but the article strikes me as being
| blogspam adjacent.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China) cites
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-completes-3-000-km-11254926...
| which is one of many press articles that only cites (but does not
| link) state media.
|
| The Economist has paywalled writeup
| https://www.economist.com/china/2024/12/05/will-chinas-green...
| that is a bit skeptical of the project's impact (unlinked claims
| at least half due to increased rain, not human efforts) and
| sustainability (also unlinked, but I'd guess correct, it seems
| somewhat similar projects such as the great plains shelterbelt in
| the US decline unless maintained).
|
| Surely there must be an afforestation/macro ecological
| engineering geek out there who has blogged on this in depth,
| would love to read it!
| hnmullany wrote:
| Vegetation-type is determined by temperature and precipitation.
| You can't un-desertify a true desert unless you irrigate. Most
| of these projects that "succeed" - miraculously correlate with
| good rainfall experience.
|
| Most of the Sahel revegetated all by itself, when the decadal
| drought ended in the 90's.
|
| Re-vegetation projects can help put vegetation back when it's
| been removed by shitty management practises like severe over-
| grazing.
|
| It can also help speed revegetation if there are no nearby seed
| sources and dispersion speeds for those species are low. But
| dry-adapted vegetation seeds can usually persist for very long
| periods of time waiting for water.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-08 23:01 UTC)