Only " Tibet Water to Xinjiang Project" can save China from severe economic&social unrest

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
For the Middle East and Pakistan, it is still cheaper to send freight by ship from Coastal China, than would be for rail from Xinjiang.

Wow, are you sure? ? Also, Whats a good route for Russia?

I don't know, you are so insisting on not having too many Chinese in Xin-jiang, just similar to West attitude, they give various reasons but basically they just dont want Han Chinese overwhelm the ughurs.

Check this out. the investment in manufacturing plants is not small at all . all type of plants including complex machinery.

That article painting a different picture than what you presented here. $66billion in investment and up 51% than last year.

Those are Not chump changes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Wow, are you sure? ? Also, Whats a good route for Russia?

I don't know, you are so insisting on not having too many Chinese in Xin-jiang, just similar to West attitude, they give various reasons but basically they just dont want Han Chinese overwhelm the ughurs.

Check this out. the investment in manufacturing plants is not small at all . all type of plants including complex machinery.

That article painting a different picture than what you presented here. $66billion in investment and up 51% than last year.

Those are Not chump changes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, sea transport is ridiculously cheap compared to railway or road transport.

There are only 10million Uighurs in Xinjiang, and already 8million Han.
If you add add 20million Han to Xinjiang, the Uighurs will be outnumbered 3 to 1.

What is the point of having more people there that need subsidies?

There are already 24million people in Xinjiang. So $66 Billion is not an unreasonable high investment figure to serve local demand
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Who knows, maybe they consider this area to be strategic because of the pipelines that are to pass though it.
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yes, sea transport is ridiculously cheap compared to railway or road transport.

There are only 10million Uighurs in Xinjiang, and already 8million Han.
If you add add 20million Han to Xinjiang, the Uighurs will be outnumbered 3 to 1.

What is the point of having more people there that need subsidies?

There are already 24million people in Xinjiang. So $66 Billion is not an unreasonable high investment figure to serve local demand

Please read that article carefully.

Few things they mentioned there.
1)that $66 billion is sudden 51% jump from previous year.

2)they talk about belt, and road, mention export to Russia and central Asia , better using rail than by ship.

3)they talk about water diversion project in Xin-jiang, digging tunnel.
Well, this is exactly what my thread is about.

So yes, it's for export and bringing water to Xinjiang.

Once water arrived there, you know what that mean , baby!
 
Last edited:

SilentObserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
Though China produces 40% of the world's fruits and vegetables, it is also a large consumer of imported meat and a large portion of the meat produced at home requires imported feed like soybeans and sorghum.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As China gets wealthier, demand for beef and lamb is also going up and they have a larger ecological footprint compared to pork and poultry.

China can be food independent without famine but it will come at a big cost to the current way of life. The price of meat would sky rocket without imports.

I think it would be wise to increase land used for production of animal protein. It would make sense strategically and financially for China to produce some of these crops in the Western and Northern regions. With water, desert farming becomes viable. I've seen half mile diameter circular irrigation farms in otherwise barren Nevada, it can be done in China too.

Southern California can support 20 million people because of the water diversion from the Colorado River. One can imagine what is possible in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia after a water diversion program.

Initially a westward migration can be incentivize by a combination of infrastructure, mining and oil projects, exactly how the rush to California began.

In my view it is not just a strategic endeavour but a financially viable long term investment and will improve the material wealth of the rest of China. The agricultural boom in Xinjiang is already impressive because the area enables scale, also pushing demand for advanced agricultural machinery which is part of MIC2025. You aren't going to get the same demand relatively speaking from hilly Southern China which is better off producing high value but less strategic crops.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Though China produces 40% of the world's fruits and vegetables, it is also a large consumer of imported meat and a large portion of the meat produced at home requires imported feed like soybeans and sorghum.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As China gets wealthier, demand for beef and lamb is also going up and they have a larger ecological footprint compared to pork and poultry.

China can be food independent without famine but it will come at a big cost to the current way of life. The price of meat would sky rocket without imports.

I think it would be wise to increase land used for production of animal protein. It would make sense strategically and financially for China to produce some of these crops in the Western and Northern regions. With water, desert farming becomes viable. I've seen half mile diameter circular irrigation farms in otherwise barren Nevada, it can be done in China too.

Southern California can support 20 million people because of the water diversion from the Colorado River. One can imagine what is possible in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia after a water diversion program.

Initially a westward migration can be incentivize by a combination of infrastructure, mining and oil projects, exactly how the rush to California began.

In my view it is not just a strategic endeavour but a financially viable long term investment and will improve the material wealth of the rest of China. The agricultural boom in Xinjiang is already impressive because the area enables scale, also pushing demand for advanced agricultural machinery which is part of MIC2025. You aren't going to get the same demand relatively speaking from hilly Southern China which is better off producing high value but less strategic crops.

California is a coastal state, which means its ports are immediately connected to the global shipping network. That allows for ridiculously low costs for freight transport to most of the world's population and economic centres.

The key question is the cost of water, because water from Tibet will be expensive. Using expensive water from Tibet for water-intensive animal husbandry is really wasteful.

What is a strategic crop?

The Chinese government definition is 95% self-sufficiency in staple crops. Which makes sense because in a wartime situation, China is presumably cut off from seaborne imports.
With rationing and also the elimination of wasteful meat production, that provides enough more than enough food.
And in peacetime, it doesn't matter if China has to import foods which are just nice to have.

Transporting bulky low-value crops by expensive railway from Xinijang to core China is also going to be wasteful.

So that just leaves the strategic justification that the water project is mainly needed to solidify control of Southern Xinjiang, and you don't need that many Han migrants to do this.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yeah right!?
Lop Nur produced potash transported by rail across whole China.

Potash is mainly used as fertiliser for staple crops.
The vast majority of staple crops are farmed in core China, where the climate and land is more conducive to farming than in Xinjiang.
There is a 95% self sufficiency target for staple crops.

So in order to reach 95% self sufficiency in staple crops, you also need enough Potash fertiliser for this level of production.

Yet China has comparatively few sources of Potash within China.
In 2012, China was importing 60% of its Potash needs.

So there is a clear strategic requirement to increase the level of domestic Potash production, even if the government has to provides subsidies to do this.
 
Top