Came back to finish reading this, and I'm glad I did. Very well-written, thank you for sharing.
What makes China's control genuinely compelling is that chemicals sit underneath almost everything else - cars, fertiliser, medicines, batteries all begin as molecules someone has to process first.
Europe hasn't just lost a single industry, they've handed Beijing a monopoly on the inputs to the rest of their manufacturing base. Same leverage China showed with rare earths, only far wider, because a country can carry on fine losing its own chemical plants right up until the day the supplier decides the relationship is political rather than commercial.
A dependency that deep never stays neutral forever.
There's been ample coverage recently over how Europe has lost its ability to manufacture anything - rightfully so - but given their continued dependence on say, Russian gas and how this has somewhat limited their response in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it makes me think if China was to enter Taiwan, what leg does Europe have to stand on?
Of course, sanctioning Chinese exports and taking over land and properties owned by Chinese investors and companies based in Europe is always an option (Chelsea FC was the example) but it does sort of cut you off at your knees if by doing so, you are now unable to buy the supplies needed to produce anything for yourself. Maybe far-fetched, but a thought I had reading this nonetheless.
Do you think Europe has any realistic way back from here, or has that window already closed?
I think you've identified the core issue. Europe's dependence doesn't really become a problem until geopolitics turns commercial relationships into strategic ones. If China were to move on Taiwan, Europe would face a much harder dilemma than it did with Russia because the dependency runs much deeper and spans countless supply chains.
As for whether there's a way back, I think the window hasn't closed entirely, but rebuilding chemical capacity would take years, enormous investment, and significantly higher energy costs. Once an industrial ecosystem disappears, it's much harder to recreate than most people assume.
"For centuries, nearly all economic activity depended on energy flows ultimately derived from the sun:" really, the only energy that is not from the sun is nuclear, all fossil fuels are just chemically stored sunlight.
I usually enjoy your articles, but I find this one biased.
It definitely raises some valid points, but it doesn’t signify the importance of protecting the environment. It’s myopic (politely said) to consider that industrial prosperity/security is long term thinking, but in the meantime completely disregarding our planet.
We cannot eat from a dead planet and at the moment we cannot move to another.
Secondly industrial independence/security means producing what I need not over producing…..
So the strategy has some leaks or is done on purpose.
Having said this I am not a fan of European bureaucracy, but there is a limit to going at the other extreme.
Thank you for your comment. I understand your frustration, and I share your concerns. What China is doing when it comes to the climate is deeply troubling. But it’s also part of a broader strategy: sacrificing environmental standards to capture global market share in energy and resource intensive industries.
I write a lot about these topics because I find them fascinating, but I’ve recently started an essay series that explores the other side of the story as well. This is the second essay in that series—you might find it interesting.
How can you not mention depletion and EROI? Germany doesnt have the good quality coal anymore that powered its industrialisation, only lignite. That doesnt even really qualify as coal. China could only become todays industrial giant because it happened to have huge coal deposists. The world will begin to use less coal in the coming decades no matter what. Because its finite and the good quality easy to reach deposits are gone.
Thank you for your comment. You make some important points, but that's not really what this piece was about.
I actually covered EROI, resource depletion, and how we're gradually moving closer to what could be called Peak Everything in another essay. I think you might enjoy it, as it explores many of the issues you raise here.
Very good analysis. This point is particularly important: "Europe treated chemicals primarily as a commercial industry. China treated chemicals as strategic infrastructure tied directly to national power. That distinction changed everything." Good, also, to underscore China's embrace of coal. I'll next be publishing a piece that looks closely at China's massive coal production. Again, well done, Atlas.
Excellent, extremely rewarding article…
Thanks Frederick, I’m glad to hear!
Came back to finish reading this, and I'm glad I did. Very well-written, thank you for sharing.
What makes China's control genuinely compelling is that chemicals sit underneath almost everything else - cars, fertiliser, medicines, batteries all begin as molecules someone has to process first.
Europe hasn't just lost a single industry, they've handed Beijing a monopoly on the inputs to the rest of their manufacturing base. Same leverage China showed with rare earths, only far wider, because a country can carry on fine losing its own chemical plants right up until the day the supplier decides the relationship is political rather than commercial.
A dependency that deep never stays neutral forever.
There's been ample coverage recently over how Europe has lost its ability to manufacture anything - rightfully so - but given their continued dependence on say, Russian gas and how this has somewhat limited their response in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it makes me think if China was to enter Taiwan, what leg does Europe have to stand on?
Of course, sanctioning Chinese exports and taking over land and properties owned by Chinese investors and companies based in Europe is always an option (Chelsea FC was the example) but it does sort of cut you off at your knees if by doing so, you are now unable to buy the supplies needed to produce anything for yourself. Maybe far-fetched, but a thought I had reading this nonetheless.
Do you think Europe has any realistic way back from here, or has that window already closed?
Thank you, I really appreciate that.
I think you've identified the core issue. Europe's dependence doesn't really become a problem until geopolitics turns commercial relationships into strategic ones. If China were to move on Taiwan, Europe would face a much harder dilemma than it did with Russia because the dependency runs much deeper and spans countless supply chains.
As for whether there's a way back, I think the window hasn't closed entirely, but rebuilding chemical capacity would take years, enormous investment, and significantly higher energy costs. Once an industrial ecosystem disappears, it's much harder to recreate than most people assume.
Great article
Appreciate it!
"For centuries, nearly all economic activity depended on energy flows ultimately derived from the sun:" really, the only energy that is not from the sun is nuclear, all fossil fuels are just chemically stored sunlight.
True Alex.
I usually enjoy your articles, but I find this one biased.
It definitely raises some valid points, but it doesn’t signify the importance of protecting the environment. It’s myopic (politely said) to consider that industrial prosperity/security is long term thinking, but in the meantime completely disregarding our planet.
We cannot eat from a dead planet and at the moment we cannot move to another.
Secondly industrial independence/security means producing what I need not over producing…..
So the strategy has some leaks or is done on purpose.
Having said this I am not a fan of European bureaucracy, but there is a limit to going at the other extreme.
Thank you for your comment. I understand your frustration, and I share your concerns. What China is doing when it comes to the climate is deeply troubling. But it’s also part of a broader strategy: sacrificing environmental standards to capture global market share in energy and resource intensive industries.
I write a lot about these topics because I find them fascinating, but I’ve recently started an essay series that explores the other side of the story as well. This is the second essay in that series—you might find it interesting.
https://fincom.substack.com/p/the-efficiency-trap?r=6rzrlm&utm_medium=ios
The accident of a Chinese coal mine had caused a shortage of organic solvents in Japan.
How can you not mention depletion and EROI? Germany doesnt have the good quality coal anymore that powered its industrialisation, only lignite. That doesnt even really qualify as coal. China could only become todays industrial giant because it happened to have huge coal deposists. The world will begin to use less coal in the coming decades no matter what. Because its finite and the good quality easy to reach deposits are gone.
Thank you for your comment. You make some important points, but that's not really what this piece was about.
I actually covered EROI, resource depletion, and how we're gradually moving closer to what could be called Peak Everything in another essay. I think you might enjoy it, as it explores many of the issues you raise here.
https://fincom.substack.com/p/peak-everything
Ah nice I will have a look. I did not mean to be condescending btw I liked the article.
No worries and thank you!
Very good analysis. This point is particularly important: "Europe treated chemicals primarily as a commercial industry. China treated chemicals as strategic infrastructure tied directly to national power. That distinction changed everything." Good, also, to underscore China's embrace of coal. I'll next be publishing a piece that looks closely at China's massive coal production. Again, well done, Atlas.
Thank you for the kind words, I truly appreciate it! Looking forward to reading your piece on it.
Excelente. Muchas Gracias
Thank you!
Banger of a piece!