1/4-1/3 EVs is an underestimate for somewhere like Shenzhen (probably for Beijing too). It's going to be well over 50% there. And virtually all scooters will be electric.
You're right about the smoking, though. It's a massive problem.
it's definitely not underestimate for Beijing where I stayed for 3 weeks this summer, maybe you count PHEV as EVs, many of those cars which look like EVs are actually hybrids, only in late 2025 China reached 50% newly registered BEV+PHEV cars plus there are lots of previously registered cars and if we count only BEVs the percentage will be much smaller, actually I think 1/3 of BEV on the road is quite an overestimate from my side
are NEV common? sure. do BEV make majority of cars on the road? for sure not
there are basically none scooters, they use either (e)bikes or electric motorbikes/mopeds (these are not new, they used them en masse already 10 years ago)
Looking into this a bit more, it seems that 20% of the total number of registered vehicles in Beijing are NEV vehicles, but that a far larger percentage of cars on the road at any given moment are NEVs. That's because almost all taxis (and buses) are NEVs.
By the way, NEVs might have only reached 50% of new registrations across all of China in late 2025, but in Tier-1 cities, it has been far higher than 50% for years. It's extremely difficult to even get a license plate for an ICE car in major Chinese cities. You have to enter a lottery, with a very low chance of winning. Even if you do get a license plate, you're banned from driving on one weekday every week.
It's extremely difficult even to get NEV license plate, trust me I talked with many of those taxi drivers who drove me every single day during those 3 weeks about how much they paid for car, how long it took to register it. The benefit of NEV passed years ago already, even for NEV license plate you have to wait years.
The IDF is not law enforcement. It's a foreign army. It treats Palestinians with utter contempt and has no problem with killing them. Its job is to protect Israeli settlers who are taking Palestinian land and to prevent the Palestinians from resisting Israeli rule.
Comparing the IDF to law enforcement in a democratic country is not relevant.
What does that have to do with the subject of this thread at all? Christians are also terrible to gay people, and European societies have only very recently (in the last two to three decades) become somewhat more tolerant.
In the context of Israel-Palestine, this issue is only raised in order to somehow justify Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, a la "They deserve it because they're not as enlightened as we are."
It’s relevant because most commenters here hold moral standards that are completely self-undermining because they choose to not apply them to the “oppressed” group.
Consider that it doesn’t matter how genocidal Israel’s Islamicist neighbors are. The IDF occassionally targets civilians when they shouldn’t. Meanwhile Israel’s neighbors don’t even draw the distinction.
The IDF killed more than 20,000 Palestinian children in Gaza.
"But Muslims don't like gay people" does not justify that.
And saying the IDF "occasionally" targets civilians is just completely divorced from reality. They've been systematically attacking civilians for more than two years straight now, racking up a kill count of more than 80,000.
Western governments don't fund their neighbors. They do fund Israel. You have to live up to the standards of the patron such as observing western rules of engagement, treatment of prisoners, and human rights in general.
Western governments do fund Israel's neighbors. This includes Egypt (one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid), Jordan, Lebanon (including indirectly through UNIFIL and UNRWA), Syria, and Iraq if they count as a neighbor.
Patrons don't necessarily apply any standard evenly.
Egypt receives US aid in exchange for maintaining good relations with Israel. That's the deal they have with the US. It's basically the same with Jordan.
The IDF is a foreign occupation army, not the police.
At least in the US, the police come from much the same communities as they patrol, and there's some sort of democratic accountability. Don't like the police? You can vote for local government candidates who will implement reforms.
In the West Bank, Palestinians are subject to arbitrary violence at the hands of foreign soldiers. The IDF is not there to protect Palestinians. It's there to protect the Israeli settlers who are taking Palestinian land. If Palestinians don't like how the IDF behaves, tough luck. Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections, so they have zero say in the government that exercises ultimate authority over their lives.
This is a fundamentally different situation from policing in the US.
Based on the US State Department cables that Wikileaks released all the way back in 2010, Russian fear of NATO expansion into Ukraine was not just a talking point.
Internal State Department cables from the embassy in Moscow say that entire Russian security and political establishment viewed it as a critical national security threat.
> Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch
a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
There are warnings throughout the cable that Russia may decide to invade Ukraine over the issue of NATO enlargement. In other words, the claim that this is just a Russian talking point is itself just a talking point.
But it is a talking point. The cable simply shows an American diplomat who has swallowed the hook and reiterates how Russians want to be perceived as thinking. One of the main efforts of Russian diplomacy is to invite foreign dignitaries and representatives to Russia, surround them with "researchers" and "experts" working directly under Kremlin guidance, to create a false impression for guests of how "Russian experts" "really think". This creates so-called useful idiots who unknowingly become champions of Putin's regime, believing they possess some inside knowledge that others lack.
The narrative shared in the cable is hilariously detached from reality to anyone who is intimately familiar with modern Russia. Putin, who lets OMON beat and sexually assault peacefully assembling (not even protesting!) Russians within sight of his office windows, is supposedly worried about the treatment of Russians abroad.
You're saying that the US embassy in Moscow doesn't know how Russian politicians and military figures think, and is full of useful idiots.
Another theory is that the US embassy has constant contact with Russian political and military figures, is very familiar with how they think, and accurately reported their views back to DC in order to help the US government formulate its foreign policy.
Ironically, I think you're the one who has swallowed a narrative hook, line and sinker.
Since it developed nuclear weapons, Israel has never been invaded by a foreign country. Israel launched the 1967 war, and in 1973, Egypt only attacked occupied Egyptian territory. Same for Syria.
The fact that the 1973 war only occurred in Egyptian and Syrian territory actually had a major impact on how other other countries reacted to it.
Even the US - Israel's main backer - basically treated Egyptian and Syrian war aims as legitimate.
There is a widespread belief that Israel would have used nuclear weapons if the Syrians and Egyptians had broken through to Israeli territory, and that this was one of the major American motivations for resupplying the Israelis during the war.
It's even possible to set the cameras up in such a way that they only store data when a traffic violation occurs. That would address the surveillance issue.
I have a strong sense that the primary objection people have to red light cameras is that they don't like getting caught running red lights, and that the surveillance argument is a rationalization, not the real objection.
Automated traffic law enforcement is surveillance. The fact it's limited in scope and functionality doesn't matter. It's still surveillance.
All surveillance increases safety. The cost is freedom.
Do you trust humans with the ability to judge the situation and the freedom to decide to run a red light if they think it's safe? Or do you surveil every intersection and punish all infractions regardless of conditions or the existence of actual victims?
For people like me, it's a matter of basic human dignity. I want to be a human with the capacity for judgement and the power to act on it. I want to decide for myself. I want to live in a society that recognizes this. I won't sacrifice this dignity in the name of safety.
There's a distinction between countries and governments. Both sides officially consider themselves to be China, the country, but under different, competing governments. They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
> Both sides officially consider themselves to be China
There is no "China, the country." "China" just means, essentially, "Empire." It's like a country claiming to be Europe, or maybe better, The Roman Empire. Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
> They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
Only one side of that conflict still exists. The other was overthrown by the people of Taiwan in the 90s. Descendants of those overthrown maintain government positions under that party name, but it's essentially a different government, given that it's a multi party democracy now, not a single party military dictatorship.
> The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
This is mostly true, with caveats: Most people in Taiwan prefer independence, but don't want to declare it to trigger a war, so therefore they only prefer status quo because it involves independence without war. If they could get it, most Taiwanese would prefer declared independence with no threat of war, but pragmatism rules out.
I'm also not sure I agree the DPP is necessarily pro-overt independence, just the current president tends to use more aggressive language than normal.
There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy.
> Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
We live in a post-WWII world of national sovereignty and inviolable borders (or at least we did until very recently). That's what China rests on for its claims, legally speaking.
"France" is a great example, as is "Italy." What we perceive of when we hear those words is a territory and government that are perfectly overlain. In reality, what one might consider France or Italy in reality contains other sovereign states! San Marino, The Vatican, Monaco, Andorra.
Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over certain territories just because of the territory of previous governments, or because of the distributions of certain ethnicities, religions, or languages. I think it's important for people to maintain an identity separate from any given government, to defang the ability of governments to leverage racialized nationalism to protect the state's continuity at all costs, even to the detriment to the people living in its territory.
By the way, it remains false that Taiwan makes any claims to PRC territory. Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.
> Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.
Okay, since you asked for it. Article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China:
"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national
boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the
National Assembly."
This was passed in 1947, when the Republic of China very explicitly claimed all of China (plus Mongolia). The constitution sets that claim in stone, and says that it can only be changed by an act of the legislature. There's never been such an act.
Taiwan formally recognizes mainland China as the "Mainland Area," and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area." It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control (and now no longer want to regain control over).
I didn't realize it was the same person I had made this comment to twice, so I will copy and paste my answer here:
> > The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.
> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."
There is no evidence to back this claim.
> It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control
There is no evidence that Taiwan makes a formal claim to territory it doesn't have sovereignty over (aka, PRC territory).
They were formally defined by the term "existing boundaries," which was clear in 1947. It most definitely did not mean the island of Taiwan, a tiny part of the Republic of China at the time.
> TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
That's not the TLDR of the ruling, and nothing like that appears in the ruling. The TLDR of the ruling is that the court does not have the authority to rule on what the territory of the ROC is.
> Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory.
The constitution clearly defines the existing territory as the borders of the ROC at the time of the passage of the constitution, in 1947. That was explicitly maintained by the ROC government for decades after it lost the civil war. The current ruling party doesn't agree with it, but hasn't changed the constitution or passed any act that eliminates the claim.
>> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."
> There is no evidence to back this claim
You're disputing that the ROC formally defines a "Mainland Area," as opposed to recognizing the mainland as belonging to a separate country? This is not even something you can reasonably dispute. They do use that legal fiction.
You will finally google this claim you've been repeating without evidence, and realize there's no supporting evidence for this claim. I guarantee it, because there is no evidence for this claim.
The Republic of China has not amended its constitution to eliminate its claim to all of China. You may be referring to the views of the current ruling party on what Taiwan should be, but constitutionally, it still claims everything.
Article 4. It's actually near the top. You probably missed it because you have to know the history of the constitution to know what Article 4 means. This is the text:
"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."
The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
The constitution says that those boundaries may only be changed by an act of the legislature. There has never been such an act.
> The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.
ROC claims over all Chinese territory formally via inherent territory / universal succession when Qing abdication transferred sovereignty of all China to ROC, territories predefined as all China. Seperatistards tried to get court to formally define, i.e. redefine it as to not include mainland but court chickened out and tossed it down to political level and original state/claims (again, all china) persists. Cue additional articles of constitution which only tries to hack jurisdiction by creating free area / mainland area as separate political jurisdiction because seperatistards couldn't muster actual political power to constitutionally renounce claims, i.e. change sovereignty.
Hence ROC constitution still maintains full sovereignty claims over all China, while legally tries to spins restricting jurisdiction in few specific territories is life hack for independence, like sharia law applying to Taliban occupied villages translate to sovereignty claim (/s). When its explicitly clear the ROC constitution still fully dejure claims all territories including mainland areas, and will continue to claim, until formal referendum renounces dejure claims.
Until then, it's just revealed preference that TWners don't want dejure independence hard enough. And why pro independant narrative has to do deliberately retarded misreading of constitution / additional articles to support equally retarded / strained interpretation that jurisdiction claims = sovereignty claims. It doesn't. Feeling independent doesn't make one legally so.
Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinformation.
I'm not the only one who read the constitution, the constitutional court did, and in doing so directed that it doesn't constitute a claim to a specific territory, thus setting in stone the fact that the Taiwanese government makes no claim to PRC territory.
You may interpret the Taiwanese constitution however you please; since you aren't the Taiwanese judiciary nor legislative yuan, your interpretation is meaningless in terms of answering the question of whether Taiwan makes claims to PRC territory.
Honestly it doesn't even matter if true or false, their logic is flawed. We could just swap China/Taiwan for the Koreas and it would still be dumb. Clearly they have independent governing bodies even though they both claim the other is an illegitimate ruling party.
The patent is either trolling or delusional. Best to waste no more time
Imagine if you forgot to bring your ID card to the bank, and they grabbed you and the next thing you knew, you were in a concentration camp in El Salvador.
You're right about the smoking, though. It's a massive problem.