Underpinning the hardware advantage is a difference in governance. In China, energy planning is coordinated by long-term, technocratic policy that defines the market’s rules before investments are made, Fishman said. This model ensures infrastructure buildout happens in anticipation of demand, not in reaction to it.
“They’re set up to hit grand slams,” Fishman noted. “The U.S., at best, can get on base.”
In the U.S., large-scale infrastructure projects depend heavily on private investment, but most investors expect a return within three to five years: far too short for power projects that can take a decade to build and pay off.
“Capital is really biased toward shorter-term returns,” he said, noting Silicon Valley has funneled billions into “the nth iteration of software-as-a-service” while energy projects fight for funding.
In China, by contrast, the state directs money toward strategic sectors in advance of demand, accepting not every project will succeed but ensuring the capacity is in place when it’s needed. Without public financing to de-risk long-term bets, he argued, the U.S. political and economic system is simply not set up to build the grid of the future.
Cultural attitudes reinforce this approach. In China, renewables are framed as a cornerstone of the economy because they make sense economically and strategically, not because they carry moral weight. Coal use isn’t cast as a sign of villainy, as it would be among some circles in the U.S. – it’s simply seen as outdated. This pragmatic framing, Fishman argued, allows policymakers to focus on efficiency and results rather than political battles.
For Fishman, the takeaway is blunt. Without a dramatic shift in how the U.S. builds and funds its energy infrastructure, China’s lead will only widen.
“The gap in capability is only going to continue to become more obvious — and grow in the coming years,” he said.
Coal use isn’t cast as a sign of villainy, as it would be among some circles in the U.S. – it’s simply seen as outdated
Isn’t it villainous to still be using and forcing a energy means that is outdated and going to kill us all? Like I love these nothing burger journalists in the US the say in a paragraph what could be done in a sentence. Meanwhile China very much accepts climate change is real and doing what they can to realistically change it and create resilient infrastructure in preparation for it.
Right? Simply put that strikes me as the analysis of a deeply unserious mind.
It’s not fucking Marvel or whatever, where “some circles” decide who the villain is based on vibes; but rather it’s villainous because of:
-strip mining, acid mine drainage runoff, acid rain/sulfur dioxide/nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, co2 greenhouse effect and ocean acidification to name a few
I think the author means that coal use isn’t seen as a political red line, and coal plants are allowed to function temporarily when there is a demand surge, with the understanding that this is only a temporary stopgap until enough battery capacity is built.
Could be he meant it like that but honestly just outright say that China does not deny reality and understands the costs of coal within the long term (i.e. climate change). Just comes off as a nothing burger of centralism when phrased so noncommittally.
It’s not noncommittal, it’s editorial. The journalist is trying to say that moral framing around coal is one of the problems with US energy policy, whereas China has a “more pragmatic” framing, which has to do with economics and strategy. This is not reporting, this is analysis, and the journalist has no real basis for any of it. They are cherry picking facts and building a narrative.
I feel it is, the entire focus of western journalism is a blase noncommittal tone that says a lot and asserts nothing, analysis needs a better conclusion than just “welp China is doing better than us cuss of vague things”. It’s just grating as the tone of western pop journalism presents itself within a legitimate sense whilst not truly centering around anything outside of acceptable for a general audience and most importantly those that own the actual site/paper itself.
Agreed in part, I just don’t think journalism should be doing as much analysis as Western journalism does, despite that analysis being merely vague bullshit, unfounded assumptions, and thinly veiled screening for journalists to write fan fic or wish casting
I think any analysis will always be partly or completely toothless when done in the west under the purview of capital as it removes any materialist take that respects reality. Then again the only good journalists are those that get the annual CIA award of excellence twice to the head.
Those journalists, the ones who get whacked, they usually don’t write analysis. They usually just report facts that are very dangerous. That’s the difference for me. Some people use analysis to chase down the facts and report the facts that create incontrovertible narrative. Others use cherry picked facts as cover for their desire to publish paper thin analyses in order to fit their own brain wormed narrative.
I agree that most analysis done in the West is shite. I just wish more journos actually reported what was happening and stayed out of wish casting and doom saying.
From the article:
TFW it’s charlatans the whole way down
Isn’t it villainous to still be using and forcing a energy means that is outdated and going to kill us all? Like I love these nothing burger journalists in the US the say in a paragraph what could be done in a sentence. Meanwhile China very much accepts climate change is real and doing what they can to realistically change it and create resilient infrastructure in preparation for it.
Right? Simply put that strikes me as the analysis of a deeply unserious mind.
It’s not fucking Marvel or whatever, where “some circles” decide who the villain is based on vibes; but rather it’s villainous because of: -strip mining, acid mine drainage runoff, acid rain/sulfur dioxide/nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, co2 greenhouse effect and ocean acidification to name a few
I think the author means that coal use isn’t seen as a political red line, and coal plants are allowed to function temporarily when there is a demand surge, with the understanding that this is only a temporary stopgap until enough battery capacity is built.
Could be he meant it like that but honestly just outright say that China does not deny reality and understands the costs of coal within the long term (i.e. climate change). Just comes off as a nothing burger of centralism when phrased so noncommittally.
It’s not noncommittal, it’s editorial. The journalist is trying to say that moral framing around coal is one of the problems with US energy policy, whereas China has a “more pragmatic” framing, which has to do with economics and strategy. This is not reporting, this is analysis, and the journalist has no real basis for any of it. They are cherry picking facts and building a narrative.
I feel it is, the entire focus of western journalism is a blase noncommittal tone that says a lot and asserts nothing, analysis needs a better conclusion than just “welp China is doing better than us cuss of vague things”. It’s just grating as the tone of western pop journalism presents itself within a legitimate sense whilst not truly centering around anything outside of acceptable for a general audience and most importantly those that own the actual site/paper itself.
Agreed in part, I just don’t think journalism should be doing as much analysis as Western journalism does, despite that analysis being merely vague bullshit, unfounded assumptions, and thinly veiled screening for journalists to write fan fic or wish casting
I think any analysis will always be partly or completely toothless when done in the west under the purview of capital as it removes any materialist take that respects reality. Then again the only good journalists are those that get the annual CIA award of excellence twice to the head.
Those journalists, the ones who get whacked, they usually don’t write analysis. They usually just report facts that are very dangerous. That’s the difference for me. Some people use analysis to chase down the facts and report the facts that create incontrovertible narrative. Others use cherry picked facts as cover for their desire to publish paper thin analyses in order to fit their own brain wormed narrative.
I agree that most analysis done in the West is shite. I just wish more journos actually reported what was happening and stayed out of wish casting and doom saying.
Good thing my custom-made “surprised hat” just came from the haberdasher, or I’d have nothing to wear!