Removed by mod
The absolute horror of research in Antarctica. Clearly a sign of colonial intent.
Removed by mod
The Philippines, notorious for inventing and being the primary user of cyanide fishing?
Japan, largely responsible for decimating bluefin tuna population in the Pacific?
Canada and the US, responsible for polluting waterways and putting salmon fisheries on the verge of collapse? Maybe for culling Northern Cod populations to 1% of their historical levels.
Oh, you mean China, which produces 73% of it’s fishery output from aquaculture. China accounts for 19.2% of global catch (i.e., fishing) and 61.5% of global aquaculture.
Other countries doing bad shit does not make it OK: It’s all bad and everyone needs to cut this shit out collectively. Just because another country did something doesn’t mean another should be immune to criticism.
You’re arguing against… Numbers? By the numbers, China’s contribution to the world’s wild fishing is proportional to their population (~18% of the world), and most of China’s fish supply comes from aquaculture.
The fact that you’re focusing on this 18% (mind you, China does control a good chunk of the world’s productive fisheries just due to the sheer scale of the rivers in China) rather than the remaining 82%…
Arguing that China is overexploiting global fisheries, frankly, doesn’t look at the quantitative data.
Removed by mod
yeah they are the ones investing heavily in solar, evs and the like
They are not the only ones investing in renewable energy. It’s good that they are, but that does not undo the many environmental disasters they have created in the pursuit of greed. Before you bring up another country or corporation doing it, it should be noted that it’s wrong when anyone does it, full stop.
Wow, and the original comment was removed, nice censorship.
i still see the original comment.
what disasters? china is the one country where they actually punish companies perpetrating environmental disasters.
i think you are thinking of the US here.
Weird, I got a message that it was removed for supposedly violating rule 1.
Anyhow, as I previously mentioned, the illegal fishing at a global scale is a fine place to start but let’s not pretend like China isn’t guilty of all the same environmental sins as the US. It’s bad when China does it, it’s bad when the US does it, nobody should use the excuse of, “Oh, well this country does it, so that magically makes it ok”
The US and China have both punished some companies, but there are plenty who went unpunished for some pretty egregious stuff in both countries (along with other countries, this is a global problem). Whataboutism doesn’t address the issue and neither country should be enabling the destruction of our environment.
What i’m saying is China ain’t doing it to nearly the scale as the US. It would be just as bad if they did. But they are not.
The US usually fines companies for a fraction of their profits while China makes sure the people responsible are actually jailed and the damage undone (whenever possible)
Its disingenuous to compare the two like they are equal in their damage or punishment for said damage.
I try to stay away from conspiracies so I haven’t gone down the rabbit hole too much, but there have been some weird things going on in Antarctica the last few years. Lots of visits from a ton of different heads of state for no officially stated reasons, civilian ships being turned away from certain areas, numerous reports of military aircraft flying around.
Like I said, I try not to dig into conspiracies too much, but this one sticks out to me. Maybe it’s just because it reminds me of the pre-2016 days when conspiracy theories were fun to think about because they involved stuff like aliens and bigfoot. Now, every conspiracy is just some nonsense political BS that’s clearly trying to push a message.
They found the stargate
Modern day conspiracies are so shit because they’re all like 2 degrees removed from some antisemetic bullshit. The flat earth conspiracy has been hijacked by neonazis for fucks same.
It is just common sense. Nations never do things for just one reason. Possession is 9/10ths of the law - if they fill Antarctica with their facilities they can later claim they have so many facilities they should just govern Antarctica. Not a bad strategic move in times of global warming.
There are dozens of research stations. Argentina has 14. The US also has 5 research stations and makes up one quarter of the summer population (China makes up 4%). Don’t see any articles hand-wringing about US ambitions in the region, for some reason.
Australia has already claimed 42% of the continent fwiw. yes when climate change makes the rest of the world unliveable Aus 2.0 is waiting just down the road.
Yeah because the US is the ally of my country. Geopolitically if you’re from a BRICS nation it’s not a concern. NATO and 5 eyes nations aren’t supportive of an ambitious China expanding influence and territory.
NATO/Five Eyes represents almost the entirety of the imperial core. They’re the real threat in the world. The imperial core caused WWI and WWII and Cold War I, and now they’re starting Cold War II.
Where does this association that all things bad and colonialism must always be one-in-the-same? If it’s not colonialism, it must not be bad. If it’s not bad, it must not be colonialism.
Regardless, the solution to the problem is fairly simple. The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?
The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?
Where do you get the info that China isn’t inviting foreigners?
China’s Qinling Station in Antarctica, the country’s fifth research station on the continent, started operation on Wednesday. The research facility is expected to help enhance mankind’s scientific understanding of Antarctica, provide a platform for China to cooperate with other countries in scientific expeditions and promote peace and sustainable development in the region, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306895.shtml
Also American research sites aren’t somewhat open either. They kicked out the Chinese from the ISS…
I don’t know if they are or are not inviting foreigners. However, I do know that inviting them and allowing them full access to the station would put national security concerns to rest.
I was talking about American antarctic stations, not all American research sites. Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.
Your comment implied they weren’t thats why I asked. Especially since the Chinese are in fact inviting foreigners as per their foreign ministry.
Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.
Iirc it was the same national security bs
Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?
National security is a legitimate concern, hand-waving it away as just “bs” is not a very practical attitude.
Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?
The word of a governmental body that has been consistent in their foreign policy and also accounts of other research projects: Why Some Scientists Choose China’s Space Station for Research - NYT Also the station is opened not even a month…
I see you moving goal posts. You’re not even doing basic research and implying that there’s no invites for international cooperation going out. How about you back up your initial claim that they aren’t or at least edit your post?
National security is a legitimate concern
For rubes, as anything can be a national security concern. Anything can be used dualy (militarily and civilian)
In other words no, just the words of the governmental body. My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever, despite apparently offending you. Just pointing out that national security concerns can be alleviated, there is a viable, diplomatic path forward for that. Since I am not an expert on the subject matter, I simply do not know if that has been attempted in earnest or not. I’m just being cautious before simply giving completely blanket trust to a country, I’m withholding my judgement and not yet forming an opinion.
No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.
What national security concerns? Antarctica is on the other side of the planet. China isn’t going to invade the US from there, so I’m not especially concerned for my safety.
The article cited signals intelligence. I’m not with the NSA or anything, so I’m pretty much just going off the article.
China is threatening the West’s strategic penguin reserves. This cannot be allowed to stand.
Mr. President, we must not allow a penguin gap!
Ok does it spark concerns or do China’s enemies spark concerns about it?
“I wouldn’t read too much into it until they have a more permanent and sustainable presence in the region… It’s more symbolic than anything. At the moment, it does not represent any strategic pivot beyond the regions China wants to go,” he added.
…
Said Prof Ho: “While it is certainly possible for the Chinese to use these bases for strategic geopolitical purposes, I would not think the Antarctic is top of their list, given they have other domestic priorities like their economy to think about.”
…
But the White Paper does not constitute an official Antarctic policy and there is no telling when such a policy, serving as a guide for China’s actions, may be put out, said Associate Professor Liu Nengye at Singapore Management University’s Yong Pung How School of Law.
…
Since 2013, Beijing has proposed to establish an Antarctic Specially Managed Area around Kunlun station, which would allow China to maintain more stringent environmental protection of the surrounding space of potentially thousands of square kilometres. Such proposals have to be approved by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, which consists of 29 countries including Russia, the United Kingdom, the US and China.
While the Madrid Protocol permits such an area, the proposal received pushback from other governments, including the US, which questioned China’s motives.
There are currently seven such areas, of which two are managed by the US, one by Australia and the remaining four jointly managed by countries including Brazil, Poland, Chile and India.
