The gist of the article is mainly: there isn't any evidence China is actually subsidizing green tech, it's just that land, labor, and materials are cheaper there and they've massively scaled production. The US and its allies claim that because their prices are so low they must be cheating, but there's little evidence to support this, and retaliatory tariffs are kneecapping the West's efforts to decarbonize.

[–] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago

I don't need any convincing really. It's the usual "they're getting good at advanced tech, only us should be able to, let's stiffle their progress"

The US and its allies claim that because their prices are so low they must be cheating, but there's little evidence to support this.

I mean look at what they did to Huawei because it was getting too big.

retaliatory tariffs are kneecapping the West's efforts to decarbonize.

It's all a smokescreen anyway. Europe sends it un unrecyclable e-waste to Africa, CO2 tax is an unfunny joke, USA doesn't believe in global warming.

Eh,It does not matter really. As i said, we're fucked.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Also featured on Bloomberg Law: China's Green Subsidies Are a Mirage

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What is the difference? A subsidy is supposed to make non-profitable product profitable. If the product is becoming cheaper and more profitable because of government investment, what else could you possibly call that besides a subsidy?

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The definition of subsidy isn't just "government investment," and it's concretely defined by the WTO. It's also only valid to current subsidies, not historical ones.