In Asia, tensions are high between Taiwan and China, with the island nation fearing a potential conflict with Beijing, which claims it as its territory under its “one-China principle.”
Ottawa has described China as an “increasingly disruptive global power” in its Indo-Pacific strategy.
“China is making large-scale investments to establish its economic influence, diplomatic impact, offensive military capabilities and advanced technologies. China is looking to shape the international order into a more permissive environment for interests and values that increasingly depart from ours,” it said, adding that investment in China is, however, unavoidable.
“China’s sheer size and influence makes cooperation necessary to address some of the world’s existential pressures … Canada will, at all times, unapologetically defend our national interest, be it with regard to the global rules that govern global trade, international human rights or navigation and overflight rights.”
It’s like we are reading different articles. Where did you get that bit about encouraging domestic investment? The only bits relevant to domestic investment in Western countries I could spot were these which do not sound like any sort of recommendations at all. Rather they just state facts:
Western governments have been shifting reliance away from countries like China and Russia over recent years amid worries they could leverage market dominance for political gain. […]
Canada has devoted billions to clean energy, most recently highlighted by major investments in auto manufacturers Volkswagen and Stellantis.
The way your comment is worded it sounds like people here are wrongly presuming hostility towards China in the article. But the article is unnecessarily hostile. They don’t commend China for investing in clean energy despite being an industrial powerhouse that could stand to make massive short term gains by avoiding these investments like the developed world has.
Yeah, reading the whole article paints a pretty obvious story.
Even ChatGPT recognised this when asked to dot-point the article
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that China has a significant presence in the current clean energy market, with a large share of global manufacturing capacity for solar PV modules and batteries (75%).
The IEA expressed concern that clean energy supply chains could become unstable if they remain concentrated in China, making the system vulnerable to unforeseen changes.
While some policy announcements indicate diversification of supply chains, overall supply chain concentration is expected to remain high.
Western governments have been reducing their reliance on China and Russia due to concerns about potential political leverage, with the EU aiming to end its reliance on Russian oil by the end of the decade.
Tensions between Taiwan and China add to concerns about China’s disruptive global power.
Canada has made significant investments in clean energy, including subsidies for battery production by auto manufacturers.
The IEA believes the transition to clean energy is “unstoppable,” with peaks in oil, natural gas, and coal demand expected this decade.
By 2030, the IEA anticipates a significant increase in electric cars on the road and emphasizes the need for support for clean energy transitions.
Governments, companies, and investors are encouraged to support clean energy transitions for various benefits, including new industrial opportunities, jobs, energy security, cleaner air, universal energy access, and a safer climate.
It clearly has fearmongering featuring in it:
It’s like we are reading different articles. Where did you get that bit about encouraging domestic investment? The only bits relevant to domestic investment in Western countries I could spot were these which do not sound like any sort of recommendations at all. Rather they just state facts:
The way your comment is worded it sounds like people here are wrongly presuming hostility towards China in the article. But the article is unnecessarily hostile. They don’t commend China for investing in clean energy despite being an industrial powerhouse that could stand to make massive short term gains by avoiding these investments like the developed world has.
Yeah, reading the whole article paints a pretty obvious story.
Even ChatGPT recognised this when asked to dot-point the article