Summary
At the Cop29 climate talks, delegates from poorer nations argue that China and India should no longer be classified as developing countries due to their economic growth and ability to contribute to climate finance.
They believe that these countries should take on additional responsibility for providing financial assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
However, China and India reject these suggestions, citing their lower per capita incomes and historic emissions.
Wild to consider the country with the largest highspeed rail network on earth “developing.”
Do you consider how fast trains go the highest measure for a developing country? Honest question as I think some countries would be stepping out of developed and into impoverished. But hey we measure up so “train go zoom” is where its at?
Yes, the quality of infrastructure means that a country is developed. You are 100% right that fast trains means that. Good job!
Fast trains = infrastructure.
Got it.
Zoooom!
Yes! Now you get it!
Okay
Not electricity, not clean plumbed water, not sewage systems. Not health services, not education, not housing, not food. Certainly not happiness.
Its choo choo zoomz.
Got it
You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper on a topic you obviously don’t know anything about.
Tooot toot zoooom
I know regions of India and China would be considered “developing” by any standard but as a country, if you’re doing fucking moon missions on homegrown rockets, you don’t need foreign aid.
And nuclear programs and aircraft carriers and belt and road initiatives and… the list is pretty long for India and china.
I think its critical is realize the outward appearance of “development” is not a true state of a country, but usually a sign of huge wealth disparity between the richest and poorest. India certainly is a victim of this where there are essentially two societies within the country. I’m not sure of China since no news coming from can be considered trustworthy.
In fact, the “developing country” tag is usually used for marketing to attract investment.
I’ve spent months travelling all over China.
It’s got amazing infrastructure everywhere and more going up everywhere. Streets are clean. People are healthy. No beggars. Certainly not “developing country” in the sense that Laos or Cambodia are “developing country”.
Seems like a binary distinction between developed and developing is too clunky. We need at least 3 categories, maybe 4.
“No beggars”, yeah because they get shipped away. China is nothing if not very careful on how it presents an image to the world. Let’s look at the metric of “can you drink the tap water” if we’re picking random metrics. By that metric, no, China is not developed.
That’s very interesting, thank you. I’d heard about Chinas progress but GDPs & mega projects aside, its good to know regular people are doing better too.
However, I’d argue we need fewer categories, if at all. Developed & Under-developed, either you’re doing well or not. Keeping it simple might make it actionable: you need hit certain basic metrics to be considered developed.
For sure it’s a scale and it should be one that goes down not just up. Would be great for everyone to be honest on this but its anything but honest especially within
China is the best in the world when it comes to window dressing. They still have a lot of rural poverty.
