If we were three years into a war with China, the war had cut living standards by a significant amount, there was an aircraft carrier group sitting on the floor of the South China Sea, and Taiwan was no closer to being safe then at the start of the war, would the American people vote in a peace administration?
That's the question. Obviously, we could want a Total War with China. But would we fight a Total War over Taiwan? America has not, in its entire history, fought a Total War against a peer competitor.
Energy is fungible and all forms of energy can be converted into all other forms. We can even utilize some of the E=MC^2 energy from uranium at the present time and hopefully from DT in the future. China can and is building reactors in years not decades.
China produces some 90% of the worlds supply of solar grade silicon, most of the rare earth elements used for wind mills and some electric cars. They are installing a million volt DC transmission system for electricity across the nation and they don't have permission time delays from bureaucrats in creating required infrastructure which means they can adapt to less oil rapidly.
If the world got serious about CO2 and put on a $50+/ton revenue neutral tax on CO2 from the oil/gas and coal mines, China would adapt about 5 times faster that we and Europe can, with our regulatory/legal system tied in knots. Within a couple of years, even cutting China's oil supply will just put them further in control of renewable energy for the world.
Remember, during the solar silicon shortage about a decade ago when Germany subsidized solar energy and the price of silicon went through the roof, China allowed construction of a private sector 30% addition to the world production capacity in about 1.5 years with a huge investment (billions) that they paid off in apparently about 6 mo. at the higher prices. When the dust settled, they owned the solar silicon market and still do even if all the countries of the world have silica sand raw materials.
As China becomes richer, food isn't an issue either. Give me energy and I can give you a fish dinner using todays technology. Just use water + electricity <=> H2 + O2 then use some of the H2 + N2 (from the air) <=> NH3, then use H2 and NH3 to grow single cell high protein bacteria, which you use to create fish-feed and then a fish dinner. In the future with genetic engineering we could make the single cell protein a better amino acid and fatty acid feed which would decrease the manure waste and improve the efficiency of going from electricity to you fish dinner.
With turf fighting bureaucrats/politicians and magical thinking environmental advocacy groups controlling the ability to innovate in the western world, China will lead the way to the future. The only hope for the west is another Mao who managed to hold back China's economic growth and progress for several decades.
Increasing high-skilled immigration would put even more pressure on China to be less aggressive externally and repressive internally. Globalization is not a zero sum game.
Tyler Cowen also omits to mention Richard Hanania, who predicted war. Hanania's book, <i>Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy: How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers, and Foreign Governments Shape American Foreign Policy</i> (Routledge, 2021) qualifies him as an IR expert.
I hope that you will schedule a discussion of Peter Zeihan's new book. There are major distortions in energy markets, and many glaring inconsistencies among energy policies.
I listened to Zeihan on Top Traders Unplugged - https://www.toptradersunplugged.com/podcast/peter-zeihan-global-macro-series-april-27th-2022/ - he was fascinating. I am also looking forward to getting his book and would love to discuss it.
If we were three years into a war with China, the war had cut living standards by a significant amount, there was an aircraft carrier group sitting on the floor of the South China Sea, and Taiwan was no closer to being safe then at the start of the war, would the American people vote in a peace administration?
That's the question. Obviously, we could want a Total War with China. But would we fight a Total War over Taiwan? America has not, in its entire history, fought a Total War against a peer competitor.
"(I wonder if that makes a China-Taiwan conflict less likely.)"
How could it not? (Less likely might still mean dangerously likely though)
Energy is fungible and all forms of energy can be converted into all other forms. We can even utilize some of the E=MC^2 energy from uranium at the present time and hopefully from DT in the future. China can and is building reactors in years not decades.
China produces some 90% of the worlds supply of solar grade silicon, most of the rare earth elements used for wind mills and some electric cars. They are installing a million volt DC transmission system for electricity across the nation and they don't have permission time delays from bureaucrats in creating required infrastructure which means they can adapt to less oil rapidly.
If the world got serious about CO2 and put on a $50+/ton revenue neutral tax on CO2 from the oil/gas and coal mines, China would adapt about 5 times faster that we and Europe can, with our regulatory/legal system tied in knots. Within a couple of years, even cutting China's oil supply will just put them further in control of renewable energy for the world.
Remember, during the solar silicon shortage about a decade ago when Germany subsidized solar energy and the price of silicon went through the roof, China allowed construction of a private sector 30% addition to the world production capacity in about 1.5 years with a huge investment (billions) that they paid off in apparently about 6 mo. at the higher prices. When the dust settled, they owned the solar silicon market and still do even if all the countries of the world have silica sand raw materials.
As China becomes richer, food isn't an issue either. Give me energy and I can give you a fish dinner using todays technology. Just use water + electricity <=> H2 + O2 then use some of the H2 + N2 (from the air) <=> NH3, then use H2 and NH3 to grow single cell high protein bacteria, which you use to create fish-feed and then a fish dinner. In the future with genetic engineering we could make the single cell protein a better amino acid and fatty acid feed which would decrease the manure waste and improve the efficiency of going from electricity to you fish dinner.
With turf fighting bureaucrats/politicians and magical thinking environmental advocacy groups controlling the ability to innovate in the western world, China will lead the way to the future. The only hope for the west is another Mao who managed to hold back China's economic growth and progress for several decades.
Increasing high-skilled immigration would put even more pressure on China to be less aggressive externally and repressive internally. Globalization is not a zero sum game.
I'm a big fan of Zeihan (not just because he's from Iowa, too). Looking forward to his book.
Tyler Cowen also omits to mention Richard Hanania, who predicted war. Hanania's book, <i>Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy: How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers, and Foreign Governments Shape American Foreign Policy</i> (Routledge, 2021) qualifies him as an IR expert.
I hope that you will schedule a discussion of Peter Zeihan's new book. There are major distortions in energy markets, and many glaring inconsistencies among energy policies.