article | posted April 19, 2007 (May 7, 2007 issue)
Elizabeth Economy
The message is clear: Shanghai under water, Tibetan glaciers disappearing, crop yields in precipitous decline, epidemics flaring. These are just some of the dire consequences that Chinese scientists predict for their country this century if current climate change is not addressed. Yet China's leaders pay about as much attention to the issue as does George W. Bush. In fact, a report issued last year by the Climate Action Network-Europe ranks China fifty-fourth out of fifty-six countries for its climate change response, just behind the United States and ahead only of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.
Beijing knows the costs of inaction: A recent major official study on climate change predicts up to a 37 percent decline in China's wheat, rice and corn yields in the second half of the century. Precipitation may decline by as much as 30 percent in three of China's seven major river regions: the Huai, Liao and Hai. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers, which support the richest agricultural regions of the country and derive much of their water from Tibetan glaciers, will initially experience floods and then drought as the glaciers melt.
Moreover, a one-meter rise in sea level will submerge an area the size of Portugal along China's eastern seaboard--home to more than half the country's population and 60 percent of its economic output. Already climate change-related extreme weather is taking its toll: In 2006 such disasters cost China more than $25 billion in damage. Finally, a study by Shanghai-based researcher Wen Jiahong suggests that the lethal H5N1 virus will spread as climate change shifts the habitats and migratory patterns of birds.
CONTINUED BELOW
Yet China's leaders show little inclination to move aggressively to forestall such calamities. As a result of China's reliance on coal to fuel its economy, its emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have tripled over the past thirty years and are now second only to those of the United States. In late 2006 the International Energy Agency predicted that China would surpass the United States as the largest contributor of CO2 by 2009, a full decade earlier than anticipated. China already uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined and is the world's second-largest consumer of oil after the United States. (India, which lags well behind China in its overall consumption of coal, is nonetheless on track to become a major CO2 contributor over the next ten years and is already the fifth-largest contributor of greenhouse gases globally.)
China's development strategy suggests that little will change in the foreseeable future. With plans on the books to urbanize half the Chinese population by 2020, energy consumption will soar. City residents in China use 250 percent more power than their rural counterparts. And China's love affair with the private car is set to rival that of the United States. A conservative estimate by the Asian Development Bank predicts that the number of cars in China could increase by fifteen times present levels over the next thirty years, more than tripling CO2 emissions.
If China's development trajectory continues as planned, its increase in greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next twenty-five years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol sought. In short, it's a nightmarishly bad picture.
It would be unfair, however, to characterize China as doing nothing to address climate change. The leadership's worries about both energy security and domestic air pollution--five of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China--are propelling them to set bold targets for reshaping their energy mix and enhancing energy efficiency.
The Chinese government has called for renewable energy to provide 10 percent of the nation's power by 2010 and 15 percent by 2020. Key state-owned enterprises and provincial governors must make 20 percent reductions in their energy intensity (that is, energy consumed per unit of GDP) over the next three years. On that front there is a lot of room for improvement: China's buildings consume 250 percent more energy than buildings in other countries with comparable climates. Beijing has responded with a raft of tough new building codes for energy efficiency. Much like the United States, cities and provinces are now taking matters into their own hands. Shenzhen, for example, has passed a regulation that solar power be used to supply hot water in all new residential buildings under twelve stories.
Already there is some success. With the assistance of the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), China built its first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified building. Fittingly, the building houses the Ministry of Science and Technology, in Beijing. Ten stories tall, it uses 70 percent less energy than similar buildings and saves 10,000 tons of water annually through rainwater collection. NRDC energy expert Robert Watson, one of the chief architects of the project, claims that if every new nonresidential building in China matched this one, the electricity savings would equal the amount of energy provided by the Three Gorges Dam.
But China is littered with well-intended demonstration projects that go nowhere. If these new regulations are to have an impact, Beijing's tough rhetoric must be matched by real enforcement, a task that has proved elusive in the past. In 2002 the Chinese government pledged to cut sulfur dioxide 10 percent by 2005. (SO2 is not a greenhouse gas but is a noxious byproduct of coal power that causes acid rain and urban smog; getting rid of it is a good idea.) But SO2 emissions have increased 27 percent. From all accounts, few if any of the coal-fired power plants that China is bringing online almost every week embrace state-of-the-art clean technology. Moreover, Beijing has already missed its first-year target for the 2006-10 plan to increase the energy efficiency of industry.
Why can't this supposed command economy impose solutions if its leadership sees a problem? There are several reasons behind China's consistent failure to meet environmental goals.
First, the central government in Beijing actually has little on-the-ground enforcement capability in the provinces. Local environmental protection officials report to and are beholden to local government officials, not to the State Environmental Protection Administration in Beijing. One of the West's great misconceptions is that what Beijing says goes. In fact, local officials are often in cahoots with factory managers and allow industry to pollute well above legal limits--either because the officials have a financial stake in the enterprise or because they are afraid that closing a factory, or making it more expensive to operate, will diminish local employment and lead to social unrest, which is now a very serious problem all across China.
In other cases, local officials want to do the right thing but are too weak in the face of powerful enterprise managers.
At root, however, China's lax environmental enforcement results from Beijing's failure to create a system of green-oriented incentives and penalties. Pricing of natural resources, pollution levies and promotion incentives for officials should all be geared toward environmental protection. Instead, growth at all costs is the guiding logic. Moreover, China's leaders are afraid to unleash civil society, in the form of the media, the legal system and NGOs, to help hold local officials accountable for wrongdoing. Already there are tens of thousands of mass demonstrations over environmental pollution every year. Officials fear that opposition demands will escalate out of control, unleashing a far more powerful push for broader political reform. So the government relies on its old methods, limiting transparency, accountability and free expression.
On the international stage, China faces pressure and incentives to become more environmentally responsible. Beijing's interest in promoting energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy resources--as well as a desire to be perceived as a constructive global actor--drove China's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. And China has become an active player in the Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), tapping into opportunities for technology transfer and international investment. China already has some seventy CDM projects under way--well over half of which supply foreign investment and/or technology for renewable energy projects. According to an Asian Development Bank expert, China could generate an annual revenue stream of more than $2 billion by participating in externally funded CDM projects.
But without more substantial commitment to meet real targets for radical emissions reductions, China's greenhouse contributions will overwhelm its best efforts.
If there is a meaningful Chinese discussion about tackling climate change, it takes place largely behind closed doors, well out of sight of foreigners. Perhaps recent natural disasters will motivate Chinese leaders: Over just the past year China has suffered floods in the east that have affected more than 10 million people, while drought this spring left 13 million people and 12 million farm animals without enough drinking water.
The Communist Party's argument over the past fifteen years has been: Since China came late to the industrialization game, the core economies, with their significantly greater historical greenhouse gas contributions, must pay for a global transformation away from fossil fuels. Now it is China's turn to develop, so deal with it.
"Development is the first urgent task," said Qin Dahe, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and co-chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It's a firm principle and, moreover, we need good and fast development. Only then will we be able to step by step solve the problem" of climate change. Chinese officials are also quick to point out that on a per capita basis, China's greenhouse gas emissions are dwarfed by those of the developed countries: Per capita discharge is only 61 percent of the world's average and 21 percent of that of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.
A more subtle indication of how China's leaders understand the global climate change regime is revealed by the regulatory framework China has established for the Kyoto-related CDM projects. In essence, Beijing places a higher priority on projects that contribute to the development of the economy and transfer technology to China than on projects that make reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
When growth and green can be accomplished together, the Chinese government embraces environmentalism. For example, it actively discriminates in favor of CDM proposals that transfer technology and advance the country's capacity in renewables, energy efficiency and methane recovery. But reforestation projects or projects that propose to reduce emissions of HFC-23--a greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 11,000 times that of CO2--are discouraged because they do not involve enough capital or provide technology transfer. Working within these confines, the Kyoto-related CDM framework offers important ways for OECD countries to nudge China away from fossil fuels.
Paradoxically, another reason climate change is not a bigger issue in China has to do with local pollution. Anyone who has visited an inland Chinese city knows how terrifyingly bad the air is. Chinese media are replete with horrifying statistics: An estimated 400,000 people die prematurely from respiratory diseases related to air pollution each year; one-quarter of China's land is desert, and the desert is advancing at the rate of 1,900 square miles per year, producing tens of thousands of environmental migrants; and in China's north and west, severe and growing water scarcity is impinging on economic growth, limiting agricultural and industrial output. As a result even the burgeoning environmental nongovernmental sector in China discusses climate change only as an afterthought. Strangely, few outside the scientific community make the connection that climate change may be exacerbating and exacerbated by these "domestic" problems.
The world's most industrialized countries started the climate crisis, but China might well finish the job. Not having China on board for a more stringent post-Kyoto accord is simply not an option.
In late April the Chinese government is expected to release a national plan on global climate change. From all accounts, the document will reinforce the government's commitment to energy efficiency and renewables while also setting forth prevention policies for natural disasters. What it will not do, unsurprisingly, is embrace any targets or timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions. For that to happen, two things are necessary. First, the United States, preferably with Australia and India in tow, must agree to aggressive emission reductions, perhaps along the lines currently pursued by California. Without a strong US commitment, the international community has no credibility in pressuring the Chinese.
Second, OECD countries will have to be far more generous and comprehensive in compensating China in its struggle to enforce tougher energy efficiency and renewable standards. That can be done with both financial incentives and technology transfers. What finally brought the Chinese on board with Kyoto and previous international environmental agreements was the attraction of getting paid to do the right thing. If the United States joins the fight against climate change--and if the price is right--there is every reason to believe that China can commit to doing the right thing again.
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Guantánamo I Know
By MORRIS D. DAVIS
New York Times
Arlington, Va.
LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.
The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.
Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.
Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”
Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”
Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees.
Each accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language; outside influence on witnesses and trial participants is prohibited; the accused may challenge members of the commission; an accused may represent himself or have assistance of counsel; he is presumed innocent until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; he is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf; he is not required to incriminate himself at trial and his silence is not held against him; he may not be tried a second time for the same offense; and he is entitled to the assistance of counsel through four stages of post-trial appellate review ending at the United States Supreme Court.
One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states, “The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing.” Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behavior, he has the right to be present and to confront all of the evidence.
Many critics disapprove of the potential admissibility of evidence obtained by coercion and hearsay. Any statement by a person whose freedom is restrained by someone in a position of authority can be viewed as the product of some degree of coercion. Deciding how far is too far is the challenge. I make the final decision on the evidence the prosecution will introduce. The defense may challenge this evidence and the military judge decides whether it is admitted. If it is admitted, both sides can argue how much weight, if any, the evidence deserves. If a conviction results, the accused has the assistance of counsel in four stages of post-trial appellate review. These are clearly robust safeguards.
The Military Commissions Act says hearsay is admissible unless it is challenged. The party raising the challenge must persuade the military judge that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission, among other reasons. While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals.
There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the United Nations-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognized judicial guarantee.
Guantánamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants, and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes. Even the most vocal critics say they do not want to set terrorists free, but they scorn Guantánamo Bay and military commissions and demand alternatives. The facts show the current alternative is worth keeping.
New York Times
Arlington, Va.
LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.
The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.
Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.
Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”
Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”
Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees.
Each accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language; outside influence on witnesses and trial participants is prohibited; the accused may challenge members of the commission; an accused may represent himself or have assistance of counsel; he is presumed innocent until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; he is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf; he is not required to incriminate himself at trial and his silence is not held against him; he may not be tried a second time for the same offense; and he is entitled to the assistance of counsel through four stages of post-trial appellate review ending at the United States Supreme Court.
One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states, “The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing.” Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behavior, he has the right to be present and to confront all of the evidence.
Many critics disapprove of the potential admissibility of evidence obtained by coercion and hearsay. Any statement by a person whose freedom is restrained by someone in a position of authority can be viewed as the product of some degree of coercion. Deciding how far is too far is the challenge. I make the final decision on the evidence the prosecution will introduce. The defense may challenge this evidence and the military judge decides whether it is admitted. If it is admitted, both sides can argue how much weight, if any, the evidence deserves. If a conviction results, the accused has the assistance of counsel in four stages of post-trial appellate review. These are clearly robust safeguards.
The Military Commissions Act says hearsay is admissible unless it is challenged. The party raising the challenge must persuade the military judge that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission, among other reasons. While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals.
There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the United Nations-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognized judicial guarantee.
Guantánamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants, and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes. Even the most vocal critics say they do not want to set terrorists free, but they scorn Guantánamo Bay and military commissions and demand alternatives. The facts show the current alternative is worth keeping.
Road kill
By Gregg Easterbrook
August 5, 2007
Suppose 245,000 americans had died in terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. The United States would be beside itself, utterly gripped by a sense of national emergency. Political leaders would speak of nothing else, the United States military would stand at maximum readiness, and the White House would vow not to rest until the danger to Americans had been utterly eradicated.
Yet 245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?
This phenomenon is not just American, it is global. Traffic deaths are the fastest-rising cause of death in the world. Yet you've heard far more about H5N1 avian influenza, which has killed 192 people worldwide since being detected five years ago, than about the 6 million people who have died in traffic accidents in the same period. Last year alone, 1.2 million people were killed on the world's roads, versus about 100,000 dead as a result of combat. The last decade is believed to be the first time in history that roads posed a greater danger to human beings than fighting (which is partly a reflection of the decline of war).
Global prosperity is rising fast, which means that global car ownership is rising fast, and both of those things are good -- but they also mean that global traffic deaths are rising as well. Worldwide, traffic deaths look exactly like a pandemic -- increasing in most nations, with local rapid spikes.
Two forces seem at play in skewed perceptions of these risks. The first is the fundamental difference between harm because of accidents and harm because of deliberate action; the second, society's strange assumption that traffic fatalities cannot be avoided.
The loss of life caused by terrorism on 9/11 -- or similar losses in other acts of terror or war -- has a wholly different moral standing than loss of life in accidents. Terrorists are criminals whose intent is homicide. Those who act illegally or immorally must be opposed even if that means engaging in complex, expensive, perilous undertakings, as the United States has since the darkness of 9/11. A life lost in a traffic accident is very sad, but it does not involve an offense against morality or human dignity. Most traffic accidents are just that -- accidents. In that sense, it may be reasonable that 3,000 deaths because of terrorism have a disproportionate effect on national policymaking.
Next, cars and trucks possess utility. They are vital to our economy and to our personal freedom. Having millions of cars and trucks roaring every which way is necessary for the American economy to be so productive. Environmental Protection Agency figures show that, in the last three decades, vehicle-miles traveled have risen 170% in the United States. Some of this may be unnecessary, but most vehicle-miles happen because they serve someone's interest. If the use of cars were restricted, accidents would certainly decline, but so would economic productivity and personal freedom.
Here's where the big faults in our thinking come into play. Do the media downplay road dangers in part because the auto industry is the No. 1 advertiser on TV and among the top advertisers for newspapers? Detroit would much rather Brian Williams or Katie Couric titter about Paris Hilton, or the L.A. Times feature articles on Waziristan, than hear about 42,642 dead on the roads last year.
Typical Americans are to blame as well. Because we don't want to contemplate dying in a car crash, we seem to assume that highway fatalities cannot be reduced, that they fall into the "stuff happens" category. This isn't so. Risks of driving or of crossing the street -- each year more pedestrians die in the United States than the death toll of 9/11 -- could be reduced significantly without any sacrifice of freedom by car owners.
Relative to passenger-miles traveled, traffic fatalities have declined in the United States owing to anti-lock brakes, air bags, impact engineering (a hidden safety feature of most new vehicles) and the big rise in shoulder-harness use (your seat belt is much more important to safety than air bags). Tougher laws and social awareness have reduced drunk driving. Yet fatalities per mile traveled have not fallen as much as might be expected given improved technology and less alcohol-impaired driving. There appear to be two key reasons: cellphones and horsepower.
Driving while yakking may seem harmless to you, but try telling that to the loved ones of the hundreds or even thousands who die each year in totally avoidable phone-related accidents. Holding a cellphone while driving will become illegal in California in 2008. But the odds of getting stopped are slight. Automated cameras now issue speeding tickets; why can't they issue tickets to owners of cars photographed with a driver using a phone?
Another idea is to pass laws under which, if a driver is on the phone at the moment of a crash, he or she is presumed to be at fault. It is well past time for legislatures to stop waffling on this issue and take action. People make phone calls while driving because they know they can get away with it. This is more important than human life?
The ever-rising horsepower of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks is another reason road fatalities stay high. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle had 119 horsepower and went from zero to 60 in 13 seconds; this year's averages are 220 horsepower and zero to 60 in 9.5 seconds. New cars, SUVs and pickup trucks of this model year are the "fastest and most powerful vehicles since the EPA began compiling data," the federal agency recently said. Even many new family sedans are ridiculously overpowered. Car & Driver magazine recently tested the new, 268-horsepower Toyota Camry: It did zero to 60 in 5.8 seconds, which was Corvette acceleration a generation ago.
Cars with high horsepower and rapid acceleration are easy to lose control of, especially for young drivers. Tap the accelerator in a tight curve for just an instant in that Camry -- to say nothing of socially irresponsible monstrosities such as the 520-horsepower Porsche Cayenne SUV -- and you can lose control. High-horsepower cars enable cutting off and other forms of aggressive driving; cutting off and sudden lane changes are leading causes of highway collisions. A generation ago, a small percentage of American drivers had high-horsepower vehicles. Now the majority do! Is it a coincidence that road rage and high horsepower have occurred simultaneously? High horsepower makes road rage possible, which in turn adds to the death count.
The proliferation of high horsepower cars is doubly wrong because it links to ever-rising petroleum use and greenhouse gases. Automakers have significantly increased powertrain efficiency in the last 20 years -- but the gains have gone into horsepower, not fuel efficiency. Other things being equal, if new-vehicle horsepower were reduced by one-third, miles per gallon would rise by one-third. One decade of sales of new vehicles with one-third higher horsepower accounts for the amount of oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf region. Reduce horsepower by a third and end U.S. Persian Gulf oil dependence. Yes, it's that simple. If only we'd actually do it!
Because horsepower is an arms race -- if one automaker offers more, all must -- federal legislation to limit horsepower would offer a good-news trifecta: Higher mpg, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and lower road fatalities as average motorists stop acting like they're at a NASCAR track.
Why doesn't Congress act to end the horsepower wars? Please don't counter that "no one can tell me what I can drive." The Constitution says you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper. Firearms and materials related to 1st Amendment expression are the only categories of possessions given protected status by the Constitution; courts consistently rule that vehicles on public roads can be regulated for public purposes such as safety.
Horsepower regulation and serious enforcement against cellphone use while driving might save thousands of lives a year. Such reforms might also prevent many billions of dollars in economic losses and make a big dent in the other road-danger figure no one talks about -- 2.6 million Americans injured in traffic crashes last year.
Other reforms, such as pedestrian-activated warning lights at crosswalks, could also reduce traffic deaths in the United States. Numerous reforms could reduce traffic deaths in developing countries. As a nation, we find common ground in agreeing that even one death from terrorism cannot be tolerated. Why are tens of thousands of annual road deaths OK?
Gregg Easterbrook is a fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Progress Paradox." Lauren Hovel of Barnard College provided research assistance for this article.
August 5, 2007
Suppose 245,000 americans had died in terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. The United States would be beside itself, utterly gripped by a sense of national emergency. Political leaders would speak of nothing else, the United States military would stand at maximum readiness, and the White House would vow not to rest until the danger to Americans had been utterly eradicated.
Yet 245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?
This phenomenon is not just American, it is global. Traffic deaths are the fastest-rising cause of death in the world. Yet you've heard far more about H5N1 avian influenza, which has killed 192 people worldwide since being detected five years ago, than about the 6 million people who have died in traffic accidents in the same period. Last year alone, 1.2 million people were killed on the world's roads, versus about 100,000 dead as a result of combat. The last decade is believed to be the first time in history that roads posed a greater danger to human beings than fighting (which is partly a reflection of the decline of war).
Global prosperity is rising fast, which means that global car ownership is rising fast, and both of those things are good -- but they also mean that global traffic deaths are rising as well. Worldwide, traffic deaths look exactly like a pandemic -- increasing in most nations, with local rapid spikes.
Two forces seem at play in skewed perceptions of these risks. The first is the fundamental difference between harm because of accidents and harm because of deliberate action; the second, society's strange assumption that traffic fatalities cannot be avoided.
The loss of life caused by terrorism on 9/11 -- or similar losses in other acts of terror or war -- has a wholly different moral standing than loss of life in accidents. Terrorists are criminals whose intent is homicide. Those who act illegally or immorally must be opposed even if that means engaging in complex, expensive, perilous undertakings, as the United States has since the darkness of 9/11. A life lost in a traffic accident is very sad, but it does not involve an offense against morality or human dignity. Most traffic accidents are just that -- accidents. In that sense, it may be reasonable that 3,000 deaths because of terrorism have a disproportionate effect on national policymaking.
Next, cars and trucks possess utility. They are vital to our economy and to our personal freedom. Having millions of cars and trucks roaring every which way is necessary for the American economy to be so productive. Environmental Protection Agency figures show that, in the last three decades, vehicle-miles traveled have risen 170% in the United States. Some of this may be unnecessary, but most vehicle-miles happen because they serve someone's interest. If the use of cars were restricted, accidents would certainly decline, but so would economic productivity and personal freedom.
Here's where the big faults in our thinking come into play. Do the media downplay road dangers in part because the auto industry is the No. 1 advertiser on TV and among the top advertisers for newspapers? Detroit would much rather Brian Williams or Katie Couric titter about Paris Hilton, or the L.A. Times feature articles on Waziristan, than hear about 42,642 dead on the roads last year.
Typical Americans are to blame as well. Because we don't want to contemplate dying in a car crash, we seem to assume that highway fatalities cannot be reduced, that they fall into the "stuff happens" category. This isn't so. Risks of driving or of crossing the street -- each year more pedestrians die in the United States than the death toll of 9/11 -- could be reduced significantly without any sacrifice of freedom by car owners.
Relative to passenger-miles traveled, traffic fatalities have declined in the United States owing to anti-lock brakes, air bags, impact engineering (a hidden safety feature of most new vehicles) and the big rise in shoulder-harness use (your seat belt is much more important to safety than air bags). Tougher laws and social awareness have reduced drunk driving. Yet fatalities per mile traveled have not fallen as much as might be expected given improved technology and less alcohol-impaired driving. There appear to be two key reasons: cellphones and horsepower.
Driving while yakking may seem harmless to you, but try telling that to the loved ones of the hundreds or even thousands who die each year in totally avoidable phone-related accidents. Holding a cellphone while driving will become illegal in California in 2008. But the odds of getting stopped are slight. Automated cameras now issue speeding tickets; why can't they issue tickets to owners of cars photographed with a driver using a phone?
Another idea is to pass laws under which, if a driver is on the phone at the moment of a crash, he or she is presumed to be at fault. It is well past time for legislatures to stop waffling on this issue and take action. People make phone calls while driving because they know they can get away with it. This is more important than human life?
The ever-rising horsepower of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks is another reason road fatalities stay high. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle had 119 horsepower and went from zero to 60 in 13 seconds; this year's averages are 220 horsepower and zero to 60 in 9.5 seconds. New cars, SUVs and pickup trucks of this model year are the "fastest and most powerful vehicles since the EPA began compiling data," the federal agency recently said. Even many new family sedans are ridiculously overpowered. Car & Driver magazine recently tested the new, 268-horsepower Toyota Camry: It did zero to 60 in 5.8 seconds, which was Corvette acceleration a generation ago.
Cars with high horsepower and rapid acceleration are easy to lose control of, especially for young drivers. Tap the accelerator in a tight curve for just an instant in that Camry -- to say nothing of socially irresponsible monstrosities such as the 520-horsepower Porsche Cayenne SUV -- and you can lose control. High-horsepower cars enable cutting off and other forms of aggressive driving; cutting off and sudden lane changes are leading causes of highway collisions. A generation ago, a small percentage of American drivers had high-horsepower vehicles. Now the majority do! Is it a coincidence that road rage and high horsepower have occurred simultaneously? High horsepower makes road rage possible, which in turn adds to the death count.
The proliferation of high horsepower cars is doubly wrong because it links to ever-rising petroleum use and greenhouse gases. Automakers have significantly increased powertrain efficiency in the last 20 years -- but the gains have gone into horsepower, not fuel efficiency. Other things being equal, if new-vehicle horsepower were reduced by one-third, miles per gallon would rise by one-third. One decade of sales of new vehicles with one-third higher horsepower accounts for the amount of oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf region. Reduce horsepower by a third and end U.S. Persian Gulf oil dependence. Yes, it's that simple. If only we'd actually do it!
Because horsepower is an arms race -- if one automaker offers more, all must -- federal legislation to limit horsepower would offer a good-news trifecta: Higher mpg, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and lower road fatalities as average motorists stop acting like they're at a NASCAR track.
Why doesn't Congress act to end the horsepower wars? Please don't counter that "no one can tell me what I can drive." The Constitution says you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper. Firearms and materials related to 1st Amendment expression are the only categories of possessions given protected status by the Constitution; courts consistently rule that vehicles on public roads can be regulated for public purposes such as safety.
Horsepower regulation and serious enforcement against cellphone use while driving might save thousands of lives a year. Such reforms might also prevent many billions of dollars in economic losses and make a big dent in the other road-danger figure no one talks about -- 2.6 million Americans injured in traffic crashes last year.
Other reforms, such as pedestrian-activated warning lights at crosswalks, could also reduce traffic deaths in the United States. Numerous reforms could reduce traffic deaths in developing countries. As a nation, we find common ground in agreeing that even one death from terrorism cannot be tolerated. Why are tens of thousands of annual road deaths OK?
Gregg Easterbrook is a fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Progress Paradox." Lauren Hovel of Barnard College provided research assistance for this article.
Let parents hold the remote
Congressional restrictions on violent television programming are unnecessary and would be unconstitutional.
By Laurence H. Tribe, LAURENCE H. TRIBE is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He is testifying today on this subject before Congress on behalf of broadcasters, cable operators and Hollywood studios.
June 26, 2007
THIS WEEK, Congress will once again consider what to do about the perceived threat to children from television violence.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers seem tempted by the idea of deeper government involvement in what television can show. The Federal Communications Commission, for instance, suggests that Congress should "time channel" certain shows to late-night time slots, implement government-run ratings or compel the segregation of more-violent programs to premium channels.
But speech restrictions such as these would be grave mistakes — mistakes that courts are unlikely to tolerate. The better approach is for Congress to empower parents — not government — to control what TV programs are appropriate for children to watch.
Depictions of violence have long figured importantly in all media. That a program displays violence cannot automatically trump its positive social value. The Old Testament is often violent, as are "Hamlet," news coverage of war and many of our best television dramas. Depictions of violence and its consequences can contribute powerfully to a show's portrayal of our often violent world, and violence — however disquieting — can add a level of meaning that is achievable in no other way.
Even the staunchest critics of TV violence must concede that only certain depictions cause real concern. But letting government decide which depictions threaten children's welfare (and therefore should be labeled or otherwise restricted or segregated) is both unconstitutional and unwise. For starters, any definition of impermissibly violent television programming will be so vague that people must "guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" — a violation of due process, as the Supreme Court held more than 80 years ago. To test just two proposed definitions, is an abusive interrogation of a suspect on "24" patently offensive? Is a depiction of the Normandy landing in a television showing of "Saving Private Ryan" excessive? Who knows?
All vague prohibitions are unconstitutional, but vague regulations of speech are particularly troubling. They "chill" valuable expression as everyone tries to avoid any speech that risks penalty — even if that speech is not actually illegal. And vague laws give regulators and prosecutors leeway to restrict speech in ways that reflect their own predilections.
EQUALLY DANGEROUS, those who want to regulate televised violence are generally responding less to the violent content itself than to what particular depictions say about using violence. But the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits government regulation based on the viewpoint speech expresses: Congress is forbidden to target speech voicing a "disapproved" message about violence (like a show admiringly portraying a mobster's violent rise through the ranks) while exempting "approved" speech on the same subject (like a show condemning a drug dealer's mayhem).
It's tempting to relax these standards when government restricts speech for children's sake, but that turns the 1st Amendment upside down. If anything, children's impressionable nature cuts against government dictating what they see or learn. Why else fight about teaching evolution?
Time channeling prevents parents and children alike from watching televised violence except during specified times, thus unconstitutionally requiring adults to view only programming "suitable" for youngsters. Likewise, compelling cable TV operators to offer more violent networks on an "a la carte" basis would also violate the 1st Amendment. Finally, even assuming the worst about how television violence affects young children, the interests Congress is trying to serve are too at odds with one another to meet the high court's standards. Our interest in protecting children from frightening material, for example, would suggest that depictions of violence should be cartoonish and sanitized — but that would undercut the asserted interest in making children understand the consequences of violence and avoiding material that some fear children might imitate. And even the strongest proponents of government control would likely tolerate violence on news and sports programs, even though that seems at least as likely to cause the very effects the proponents seek to prevent.
As a father and grandfather, I share the worries of other parents about what their children watch on TV. But it is in my role as a parent and grandparent — not just a scholar — that I write here.
We should resist moves by government to control the upbringing of our children. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that more narrowly tailored measures, intended solely to facilitate parental control, are less restrictive of speech and should be invoked even when centralized government regulation might be more effective.
Fortunately, parents today have more options than ever to control what their children see on television, from the V-chip to time-shifting technologies to voluntary ratings systems. We should not bypass them on the easy but treacherous path to censorship.
By Laurence H. Tribe, LAURENCE H. TRIBE is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He is testifying today on this subject before Congress on behalf of broadcasters, cable operators and Hollywood studios.
June 26, 2007
THIS WEEK, Congress will once again consider what to do about the perceived threat to children from television violence.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers seem tempted by the idea of deeper government involvement in what television can show. The Federal Communications Commission, for instance, suggests that Congress should "time channel" certain shows to late-night time slots, implement government-run ratings or compel the segregation of more-violent programs to premium channels.
But speech restrictions such as these would be grave mistakes — mistakes that courts are unlikely to tolerate. The better approach is for Congress to empower parents — not government — to control what TV programs are appropriate for children to watch.
Depictions of violence have long figured importantly in all media. That a program displays violence cannot automatically trump its positive social value. The Old Testament is often violent, as are "Hamlet," news coverage of war and many of our best television dramas. Depictions of violence and its consequences can contribute powerfully to a show's portrayal of our often violent world, and violence — however disquieting — can add a level of meaning that is achievable in no other way.
Even the staunchest critics of TV violence must concede that only certain depictions cause real concern. But letting government decide which depictions threaten children's welfare (and therefore should be labeled or otherwise restricted or segregated) is both unconstitutional and unwise. For starters, any definition of impermissibly violent television programming will be so vague that people must "guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" — a violation of due process, as the Supreme Court held more than 80 years ago. To test just two proposed definitions, is an abusive interrogation of a suspect on "24" patently offensive? Is a depiction of the Normandy landing in a television showing of "Saving Private Ryan" excessive? Who knows?
All vague prohibitions are unconstitutional, but vague regulations of speech are particularly troubling. They "chill" valuable expression as everyone tries to avoid any speech that risks penalty — even if that speech is not actually illegal. And vague laws give regulators and prosecutors leeway to restrict speech in ways that reflect their own predilections.
EQUALLY DANGEROUS, those who want to regulate televised violence are generally responding less to the violent content itself than to what particular depictions say about using violence. But the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits government regulation based on the viewpoint speech expresses: Congress is forbidden to target speech voicing a "disapproved" message about violence (like a show admiringly portraying a mobster's violent rise through the ranks) while exempting "approved" speech on the same subject (like a show condemning a drug dealer's mayhem).
It's tempting to relax these standards when government restricts speech for children's sake, but that turns the 1st Amendment upside down. If anything, children's impressionable nature cuts against government dictating what they see or learn. Why else fight about teaching evolution?
Time channeling prevents parents and children alike from watching televised violence except during specified times, thus unconstitutionally requiring adults to view only programming "suitable" for youngsters. Likewise, compelling cable TV operators to offer more violent networks on an "a la carte" basis would also violate the 1st Amendment. Finally, even assuming the worst about how television violence affects young children, the interests Congress is trying to serve are too at odds with one another to meet the high court's standards. Our interest in protecting children from frightening material, for example, would suggest that depictions of violence should be cartoonish and sanitized — but that would undercut the asserted interest in making children understand the consequences of violence and avoiding material that some fear children might imitate. And even the strongest proponents of government control would likely tolerate violence on news and sports programs, even though that seems at least as likely to cause the very effects the proponents seek to prevent.
As a father and grandfather, I share the worries of other parents about what their children watch on TV. But it is in my role as a parent and grandparent — not just a scholar — that I write here.
We should resist moves by government to control the upbringing of our children. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that more narrowly tailored measures, intended solely to facilitate parental control, are less restrictive of speech and should be invoked even when centralized government regulation might be more effective.
Fortunately, parents today have more options than ever to control what their children see on television, from the V-chip to time-shifting technologies to voluntary ratings systems. We should not bypass them on the easy but treacherous path to censorship.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Citizenship: Rights, Responsibilities and Liberties
讲到role of gov, citizenship可以用到的一点概念
Describe concepts that define the meaning of democracy as expressed in the United States Constitutional system.
Explain that concepts of democracy define and shape the meaning of citizenship.
Identify fundamental political concepts:
• Fundamental worth and dignity of the individual: All persons are entitled to life, liberty, and due process under the law.
• Equality: All persons are entitled to equal rights and treatment before the law.
• Majority rule: The will of the majority as expressed through elections is fundamental to the American system.
• Minority rights: The Constitution of the United States protects the rights of the few from oppression.
• Compromise: The structure of the United States government necessitates compromise by all sides.
Individual freedom: All persons are born free, equal, and independent.
• Explain that an analysis of current events demonstrates contemporary applications of democratic concepts.
Explain that Civil liberties are freedoms upon which the government may not infringe.
Explain that the Bill of Rights is composed of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. It guarantees the rights of individuals and expresses limitations on federal and state governments.
Identify First Amendment freedoms:
Religion
• Government may not establish an official religion, nor endorse, or unduly interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Speech
• Individuals are free to express their opinions and beliefs.
Press
• The press is free to gather and publish information, including that which criticizes the government.
Assembly
• Individuals may peacefully gather.
Petition
• Individuals have the freedom to make their views known to public officials.
Explain that the Bill of Rights protects citizens from
• Unreasonable search and seizures
• Double jeopardy
• Self-incrimination
• Cruel and unusual punishment
Explain how the right to due process of law is outlined in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Describe two types of due process of law
• Procedural due process of law—The government must use fair proceedings.
• Substantive due process of law—The laws under which the government acts must be constitutional.
Explain how the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America protect due process of law:
• 5th Amendment—Prohibits the national government from acting in an unfair or arbitrary manner__
• 14th Amendment—Prohibits state and local governments from acting in an unfair or arbitrary manner.
Using the following information, analyze how the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment (due process of law clause) greatly enhances the protection of civil rights and extends the Bill of Rights protections to state proceedings:
• Beginning in the twentieth century, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment (due process of law clause) to limit state actions, just as the Bill of Rights limits the national government.
The Supreme Court has incorporated in the due process clause all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights except those of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 10th Amendments and the grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment.
Explain how the protection of civil liberties and civil rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, is balanced by compelling public interest.
Describe the limitations of rights because few rights, if any, are considered absolute:
• Some forms of speech are not protected (e.g., libel, slander, and obscenity).
• Speech that is a “clear and present danger” is not protected (e.g., shouting fire in a crowded building).
• The press can be restricted when publication will cause serious and irreparable harm (e.g., national security).
Explain that the equal protection clause is contained in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Explain that the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment provides the basis for the safekeeping of civil rights.
Describe how the promise of equal protection under the law does not guarantee all people will be treated exactly the same.
Explain that the government may classify or categorize people into groups for justifiable government goals (e.g., adults under 21 may not purchase alcohol).
Analyze applications of the equal protection principle:
• Civil Rights Movement—Congress passed a series of laws outlawing discrimination.
• Affirmative Action—The government passed laws and implemented procedures to reverse the effects of years of discrimination primarily against women and minorities.
Explain that thoughtful and effective participation in civic life depends upon the exercise of good citizenship.
Identify characteristics of good citizens:
• Trustworthiness and honesty
• Courtesy
• Respect for the rights of others
• Responsibility
• Accountability
• Self-reliance
• Respect for the law
• Patriotism
Explain that thoughtful and effective participation in civic life is essential to the nation’s well-being.
Identify duties of responsible citizens:• To obey the law
• To pay taxes
• To serve as jurors
• To register and vote
• To perform public service
• To keep informed
• To respect the opinions of others
Sunday, August 19, 2007
China's toxic toymaker
Aug 16th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Alamy
The death of Zhang Shuhong could herald the demise of China's many anonymous subcontractors
Get article background
UNTIL a brief notice appeared in China's state-run People's Daily on August 14th announcing that Zhang Shuhong had hanged himself, almost no one had ever heard of him. The Economist could not find a picture of him. Even in Foshan, a manufacturing centre in southern China where he owned part of a factory that produced dolls for Mattel, a big American toy-maker, he was an obscure figure.
That is not unusual. There are legions of equally faceless sub-contractors, who are collectively responsible for much of the astonishing growth in Chinese exports. But when Mattel announced a recall of the flawed toys Mr Zhang had made, and especially after he took his own life in response, he became one of China's most famous businessmen—and the embodiment of all the world's misgivings about what comes out of its factories.
The same day that he died, Mattel recalled 436,000 cars daubed with lead-based paint and more than 18m toys containing small magnets which could come loose and be swallowed by children, with dire medical consequences. The recall was Mattel's second of the month. Earlier, the company's Fisher-Price unit had found lead paint on its toys, at least some of which came from Mr Zhang's factory. All of the flawed items were made in China, where 65% of Mattel's products are sourced. The first recall will cost the firm about $30m, and the second might prove more expensive still.
The consequences might have been worse still were it not for the fact that Mattel is hardly the only company to have been caught selling sub-standard Chinese goods of late. Pet food, lorry tyres and toothpaste have all suffered recent product recalls. Nokia has just warned that some of its mobile-phone batteries made in China are prone to overheating, although the factory at fault belonged to Japan's Matsushita.
Some of America's more populist politicians are taking this list as proof that anonymous Chinese subcontractors are not to be trusted, that America needs much more elaborate safeguards against tainted goods and that firms that had outsourced manufacturing to faraway lands would have done better to keep their factories closer to home. Charles Schumer, a tub-thumping senator from New York, has called for the creation of an “import tsar” to police foreign goods.
No doubt many importers will examine their supply chains more carefully, if only for fear that they will be sued by customers who have bought poisonous furniture or explosive mobile telephones, and shunned by others who hear about such fiascos. This sudden scrutiny will probably bring other scandals to light. Mr Zhang's problems, after all, appear to have stemmed from the contaminated paint he bought from another, as yet unidentified, local industrialist. On the assumption that Mr Zhang was not the local industrialist's only customer, there must be other firms that have not yet disclosed their own shortcomings, or are not yet aware of them.
There are several ironies in this. One is that in China, it is often said that subcontractors making electronics or trainers or toys are not the worst violators when it comes to safety and labour standards. Their products are typically bought by big firms, like Mattel, and the order is large enough for the purchaser to set standards and carry out regular inspections. Smaller foreign firms ordering smaller lots, in luxury goods for example, have a far weaker negotiating position.
Monitoring contract manufacturers from abroad is not easy. Visits to factories are hard to arrange, are often cancelled, and, when they do occur, are sometimes elaborately stage-managed. Reporters are particularly unwelcome, but even customers do not always know what is going on. Mattel, for example, had done business with Mr Zhang for 15 years.
The other irony is that, broadly speaking, quality is improving (something that worries the Japanese). The Chinese authorities are aware of and embarrassed by the recent string of scare stories, and are anxious to revive China's faltering reputation. They have started a high-profile campaign to raise standards and punish slapdash manufacturers.
Getting to know you
What Chinese manufacturing lacks is not so much quality control as accountability. Foreign firms feel obliged to use contractors like Mr Zhang to cope with capricious and corrupt local officials, and the arbitrary justice they mete out. Yet firms like Mr Zhang's are inscrutable and transient, with no brand or reputation to speak of. When Japan was industrialising, ambitious companies did some contract manufacturing, but they also worked hard to build their own brands, as Matsushita did with Panasonic. In South Korea Samsung has prospered by keeping both production and marketing in house. Yet in China, firms like Mr Zhang's eschew brands of their own, and keep a low profile, in order to win contracts from several competing foreign firms.
Until now, this anonymous arrangement suited both the contractors and their clients. It would undermine the brands that Adidas, Puma and Nike have spent so much to promote if their customers knew that a Taiwanese contractor called Yue Yuen produced shoes for all of them in China. Likewise, Hewlett Packard, Dell and Apple do not advertise that they all make use of a firm called Hon Hai. Conversely, it is only by keeping the lowest of low profiles that the likes of Yue Yuen and Hon Hai can sell to several competitors.
But this whole system might founder on the question of quality control. To distinguish themselves from their dodgier rivals, Chinese contractors will have to become better known. In that sense, the suicide of a faceless figure like Mr Zhang, and the furore it has prompted, might prove the death-knell of all China's anonymous industrialists.
From The Economist print edition
Alamy
The death of Zhang Shuhong could herald the demise of China's many anonymous subcontractors
Get article background
UNTIL a brief notice appeared in China's state-run People's Daily on August 14th announcing that Zhang Shuhong had hanged himself, almost no one had ever heard of him. The Economist could not find a picture of him. Even in Foshan, a manufacturing centre in southern China where he owned part of a factory that produced dolls for Mattel, a big American toy-maker, he was an obscure figure.
That is not unusual. There are legions of equally faceless sub-contractors, who are collectively responsible for much of the astonishing growth in Chinese exports. But when Mattel announced a recall of the flawed toys Mr Zhang had made, and especially after he took his own life in response, he became one of China's most famous businessmen—and the embodiment of all the world's misgivings about what comes out of its factories.
The same day that he died, Mattel recalled 436,000 cars daubed with lead-based paint and more than 18m toys containing small magnets which could come loose and be swallowed by children, with dire medical consequences. The recall was Mattel's second of the month. Earlier, the company's Fisher-Price unit had found lead paint on its toys, at least some of which came from Mr Zhang's factory. All of the flawed items were made in China, where 65% of Mattel's products are sourced. The first recall will cost the firm about $30m, and the second might prove more expensive still.
The consequences might have been worse still were it not for the fact that Mattel is hardly the only company to have been caught selling sub-standard Chinese goods of late. Pet food, lorry tyres and toothpaste have all suffered recent product recalls. Nokia has just warned that some of its mobile-phone batteries made in China are prone to overheating, although the factory at fault belonged to Japan's Matsushita.
Some of America's more populist politicians are taking this list as proof that anonymous Chinese subcontractors are not to be trusted, that America needs much more elaborate safeguards against tainted goods and that firms that had outsourced manufacturing to faraway lands would have done better to keep their factories closer to home. Charles Schumer, a tub-thumping senator from New York, has called for the creation of an “import tsar” to police foreign goods.
No doubt many importers will examine their supply chains more carefully, if only for fear that they will be sued by customers who have bought poisonous furniture or explosive mobile telephones, and shunned by others who hear about such fiascos. This sudden scrutiny will probably bring other scandals to light. Mr Zhang's problems, after all, appear to have stemmed from the contaminated paint he bought from another, as yet unidentified, local industrialist. On the assumption that Mr Zhang was not the local industrialist's only customer, there must be other firms that have not yet disclosed their own shortcomings, or are not yet aware of them.
There are several ironies in this. One is that in China, it is often said that subcontractors making electronics or trainers or toys are not the worst violators when it comes to safety and labour standards. Their products are typically bought by big firms, like Mattel, and the order is large enough for the purchaser to set standards and carry out regular inspections. Smaller foreign firms ordering smaller lots, in luxury goods for example, have a far weaker negotiating position.
Monitoring contract manufacturers from abroad is not easy. Visits to factories are hard to arrange, are often cancelled, and, when they do occur, are sometimes elaborately stage-managed. Reporters are particularly unwelcome, but even customers do not always know what is going on. Mattel, for example, had done business with Mr Zhang for 15 years.
The other irony is that, broadly speaking, quality is improving (something that worries the Japanese). The Chinese authorities are aware of and embarrassed by the recent string of scare stories, and are anxious to revive China's faltering reputation. They have started a high-profile campaign to raise standards and punish slapdash manufacturers.
Getting to know you
What Chinese manufacturing lacks is not so much quality control as accountability. Foreign firms feel obliged to use contractors like Mr Zhang to cope with capricious and corrupt local officials, and the arbitrary justice they mete out. Yet firms like Mr Zhang's are inscrutable and transient, with no brand or reputation to speak of. When Japan was industrialising, ambitious companies did some contract manufacturing, but they also worked hard to build their own brands, as Matsushita did with Panasonic. In South Korea Samsung has prospered by keeping both production and marketing in house. Yet in China, firms like Mr Zhang's eschew brands of their own, and keep a low profile, in order to win contracts from several competing foreign firms.
Until now, this anonymous arrangement suited both the contractors and their clients. It would undermine the brands that Adidas, Puma and Nike have spent so much to promote if their customers knew that a Taiwanese contractor called Yue Yuen produced shoes for all of them in China. Likewise, Hewlett Packard, Dell and Apple do not advertise that they all make use of a firm called Hon Hai. Conversely, it is only by keeping the lowest of low profiles that the likes of Yue Yuen and Hon Hai can sell to several competitors.
But this whole system might founder on the question of quality control. To distinguish themselves from their dodgier rivals, Chinese contractors will have to become better known. In that sense, the suicide of a faceless figure like Mr Zhang, and the furore it has prompted, might prove the death-knell of all China's anonymous industrialists.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
China vs. Earth
Elizabeth Economy
The message is clear: Shanghai under water, Tibetan glaciers disappearing, crop yields in precipitous decline, epidemics flaring. These are just some of the dire consequences that Chinese scientists predict for their country this century if current climate change is not addressed. Yet China's leaders pay about as much attention to the issue as does George W. Bush. In fact, a report issued last year by the Climate Action Network-Europe ranks China fifty-fourth out of fifty-six countries for its climate change response, just behind the United States and ahead only of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.
The message is clear: Shanghai under water, Tibetan glaciers disappearing, crop yields in precipitous decline, epidemics flaring. These are just some of the dire consequences that Chinese scientists predict for their country this century if current climate change is not addressed. Yet China's leaders pay about as much attention to the issue as does George W. Bush. In fact, a report issued last year by the Climate Action Network-Europe ranks China fifty-fourth out of fifty-six countries for its climate change response, just behind the United States and ahead only of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.
Beijing knows the costs of inaction: A recent major official study on climate change predicts up to a 37 percent decline in China's wheat, rice and corn yields in the second half of the century. Precipitation may decline by as much as 30 percent in three of China's seven major river regions: the Huai, Liao and Hai. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers, which support the richest agricultural regions of the country and derive much of their water from Tibetan glaciers, will initially experience floods and then drought as the glaciers melt.
Moreover, a one-meter rise in sea level will submerge an area the size of Portugal along China's eastern seaboard--home to more than half the country's population and 60 percent of its economic output. Already climate change-related extreme weather is taking its toll: In 2006 such disasters cost China more than $25 billion in damage. Finally, a study by Shanghai-based researcher Wen Jiahong suggests that the lethal H5N1 virus will spread as climate change shifts the habitats and migratory patterns of birds.
Yet China's leaders show little inclination to move aggressively to forestall such calamities. As a result of China's reliance on coal to fuel its economy, its emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have tripled over the past thirty years and are now second only to those of the United States. In late 2006 the International Energy Agency predicted that China would surpass the United States as the largest contributor of CO2 by 2009, a full decade earlier than anticipated. China already uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined and is the world's second-largest consumer of oil after the United States. (India, which lags well behind China in its overall consumption of coal, is nonetheless on track to become a major CO2 contributor over the next ten years and is already the fifth-largest contributor of greenhouse gases globally.)China's development strategy suggests that little will change in the foreseeable future. With plans on the books to urbanize half the Chinese population by 2020, energy consumption will soar. City residents in China use 250 percent more power than their rural counterparts. And China's love affair with the private car is set to rival that of the United States. A conservative estimate by the Asian Development Bank predicts that the number of cars in China could increase by fifteen times present levels over the next thirty years, more than tripling CO2 emissions.
If China's development trajectory continues as planned, its increase in greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next twenty-five years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol sought. In short, it's a nightmarishly bad picture.
It would be unfair, however, to characterize China as doing nothing to address climate change. The leadership's worries about both energy security and domestic air pollution--five of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China--are propelling them to set bold targets for reshaping their energy mix and enhancing energy efficiency.
The Chinese government has called for renewable energy to provide 10 percent of the nation's power by 2010 and 15 percent by 2020. Key state-owned enterprises and provincial governors must make 20 percent reductions in their energy intensity (that is, energy consumed per unit of GDP) over the next three years. On that front there is a lot of room for improvement: China's buildings consume 250 percent more energy than buildings in other countries with comparable climates. Beijing has responded with a raft of tough new building codes for energy efficiency. Much like the United States, cities and provinces are now taking matters into their own hands. Shenzhen, for example, has passed a regulation that solar power be used to supply hot water in all new residential buildings under twelve stories.
Already there is some success. With the assistance of the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), China built its first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified building. Fittingly, the building houses the Ministry of Science and Technology, in Beijing. Ten stories tall, it uses 70 percent less energy than similar buildings and saves 10,000 tons of water annually through rainwater collection. NRDC energy expert Robert Watson, one of the chief architects of the project, claims that if every new nonresidential building in China matched this one, the electricity savings would equal the amount of energy provided by the Three Gorges Dam.
But China is littered with well-intended demonstration projects that go nowhere. If these new regulations are to have an impact, Beijing's tough rhetoric must be matched by real enforcement, a task that has proved elusive in the past. In 2002 the Chinese government pledged to cut sulfur dioxide 10 percent by 2005. (SO2 is not a greenhouse gas but is a noxious byproduct of coal power that causes acid rain and urban smog; getting rid of it is a good idea.) But SO2 emissions have increased 27 percent. From all accounts, few if any of the coal-fired power plants that China is bringing online almost every week embrace state-of-the-art clean technology. Moreover, Beijing has already missed its first-year target for the 2006-10 plan to increase the energy efficiency of industry.
Why can't this supposed command economy impose solutions if its leadership sees a problem? There are several reasons behind China's consistent failure to meet environmental goals.
First, the central government in Beijing actually has little on-the-ground enforcement capability in the provinces. Local environmental protection officials report to and are beholden to local government officials, not to the State Environmental Protection Administration in Beijing. One of the West's great misconceptions is that what Beijing says goes. In fact, local officials are often in cahoots with factory managers and allow industry to pollute well above legal limits--either because the officials have a financial stake in the enterprise or because they are afraid that closing a factory, or making it more expensive to operate, will diminish local employment and lead to social unrest, which is now a very serious problem all across China.
In other cases, local officials want to do the right thing but are too weak in the face of powerful enterprise managers.
At root, however, China's lax environmental enforcement results from Beijing's failure to create a system of green-oriented incentives and penalties. Pricing of natural resources, pollution levies and promotion incentives for officials should all be geared toward environmental protection. Instead, growth at all costs is the guiding logic. Moreover, China's leaders are afraid to unleash civil society, in the form of the media, the legal system and NGOs, to help hold local officials accountable for wrongdoing. Already there are tens of thousands of mass demonstrations over environmental pollution every year. Officials fear that opposition demands will escalate out of control, unleashing a far more powerful push for broader political reform. So the government relies on its old methods, limiting transparency, accountability and free expression.
On the international stage, China faces pressure and incentives to become more environmentally responsible. Beijing's interest in promoting energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy resources--as well as a desire to be perceived as a constructive global actor--drove China's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. And China has become an active player in the Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), tapping into opportunities for technology transfer and international investment. China already has some seventy CDM projects under way--well over half of which supply foreign investment and/or technology for renewable energy projects. According to an Asian Development Bank expert, China could generate an annual revenue stream of more than $2 billion by participating in externally funded CDM projects.
But without more substantial commitment to meet real targets for radical emissions reductions, China's greenhouse contributions will overwhelm its best efforts.
If there is a meaningful Chinese discussion about tackling climate change, it takes place largely behind closed doors, well out of sight of foreigners. Perhaps recent natural disasters will motivate Chinese leaders: Over just the past year China has suffered floods in the east that have affected more than 10 million people, while drought this spring left 13 million people and 12 million farm animals without enough drinking water.
The Communist Party's argument over the past fifteen years has been: Since China came late to the industrialization game, the core economies, with their significantly greater historical greenhouse gas contributions, must pay for a global transformation away from fossil fuels. Now it is China's turn to develop, so deal with it.
"Development is the first urgent task," said Qin Dahe, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and co-chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It's a firm principle and, moreover, we need good and fast development. Only then will we be able to step by step solve the problem" of climate change. Chinese officials are also quick to point out that on a per capita basis, China's greenhouse gas emissions are dwarfed by those of the developed countries: Per capita discharge is only 61 percent of the world's average and 21 percent of that of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.
A more subtle indication of how China's leaders understand the global climate change regime is revealed by the regulatory framework China has established for the Kyoto-related CDM projects. In essence, Beijing places a higher priority on projects that contribute to the development of the economy and transfer technology to China than on projects that make reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
When growth and green can be accomplished together, the Chinese government embraces environmentalism. For example, it actively discriminates in favor of CDM proposals that transfer technology and advance the country's capacity in renewables, energy efficiency and methane recovery. But reforestation projects or projects that propose to reduce emissions of HFC-23--a greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 11,000 times that of CO2--are discouraged because they do not involve enough capital or provide technology transfer. Working within these confines, the Kyoto-related CDM framework offers important ways for OECD countries to nudge China away from fossil fuels.
Paradoxically, another reason climate change is not a bigger issue in China has to do with local pollution. Anyone who has visited an inland Chinese city knows how terrifyingly bad the air is. Chinese media are replete with horrifying statistics: An estimated 400,000 people die prematurely from respiratory diseases related to air pollution each year; one-quarter of China's land is desert, and the desert is advancing at the rate of 1,900 square miles per year, producing tens of thousands of environmental migrants; and in China's north and west, severe and growing water scarcity is impinging on economic growth, limiting agricultural and industrial output. As a result even the burgeoning environmental nongovernmental sector in China discusses climate change only as an afterthought. Strangely, few outside the scientific community make the connection that climate change may be exacerbating and exacerbated by these "domestic" problems.
The world's most industrialized countries started the climate crisis, but China might well finish the job. Not having China on board for a more stringent post-Kyoto accord is simply not an option.
In late April the Chinese government is expected to release a national plan on global climate change. From all accounts, the document will reinforce the government's commitment to energy efficiency and renewables while also setting forth prevention policies for natural disasters. What it will not do, unsurprisingly, is embrace any targets or timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions. For that to happen, two things are necessary. First, the United States, preferably with Australia and India in tow, must agree to aggressive emission reductions, perhaps along the lines currently pursued by California. Without a strong US commitment, the international community has no credibility in pressuring the Chinese.
Second, OECD countries will have to be far more generous and comprehensive in compensating China in its struggle to enforce tougher energy efficiency and renewable standards. That can be done with both financial incentives and technology transfers. What finally brought the Chinese on board with Kyoto and previous international environmental agreements was the attraction of getting paid to do the right thing. If the United States joins the fight against climate change--and if the price is right--there is every reason to believe that China can commit to doing the right thing again.
Fixing the College Loan Mess
from New York Times
Congress has reacted to the college loan scandal with several strong proposals that would go a long way toward ending corruption while making loans more affordable for students and taxpayers. The House has passed a bill that would make it a crime for lenders to solicit business by offering college officials anything of value and force lenders to disclose any existing deals. And both houses are on the verge of approving legislation that would cut some $19 billion in wasteful subsidies to the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
Under that program, the government pays commercial lenders to make loans to students and protects them from defaults. The money saved by cutting subsidies would be spent on Pell Grants, need-based loans, scholarships for aspiring teachers and loan forgiveness for graduates who go into public service. The bill would also lift federal student loan borrowing limits and cap payments at 15 percent of the borrower’s taxable income.
Another important proposal by Representative Tom Petri, Republican of Wisconsin, would trigger a study of an auction system in which lenders would compete for the right to issue loans. If successful, it could drive down costs to both taxpayers and borrowers and eventually lead to the end of subsidies.
Senator Michael Enzi, Republican of Wyoming, has offered a worthy proposal that would phase out a lucrative and clearly unethical program that permits colleges to skim off loan profits while serving as middlemen for the lenders. Created at a time when it seemed that the college loan business might not be profitable enough to attract real lenders, this program is no longer necessary. It’s also prone to exploitation by for-profit schools that accept unqualified students solely to strip them of the money they receive through federally backed grants and loans.
The truth about recycling
Jun 7th 2007
From The Economist print edition
IT IS an awful lot of rubbish. Since 1960 the amount of municipal waste being collected in America has nearly tripled, reaching 245m tonnes in 2005. According to European Union statistics, the amount of municipal waste produced in western Europe increased by 23% between 1995 and 2003, to reach 577kg per person. (So much for the plan to reduce waste per person to 300kg by 2000.) As the volume of waste has increased, so have recycling efforts. In 1980 America recycled only 9.6% of its municipal rubbish; today the rate stands at 32%. A similar trend can be seen in Europe, where some countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands, now recycle 60% or more of their municipal waste. Britain's recycling rate, at 27%, is low, but it is improving fast, having nearly doubled in the past three years.
Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves. “We are constantly being asked: Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds?” says Julian Parfitt, principal analyst at Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a non-profit British company that encourages recycling and develops markets for recycled materials.
Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.
Based on this study, WRAP calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads.Similarly, America's Environmental Protection Agency estimates that recycling reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49m tonnes in 2005.
Recycling has many other benefits, too. It conserves natural resources. It also reduces the amount of waste that is buried or burnt, hardly ideal ways to get rid of the stuff. (Landfills take up valuable space and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and although incinerators are not as polluting as they once were, they still produce noxious emissions, so people dislike having them around.) But perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock. “If you can use recycled materials, you don't have to mine ores, cut trees and drill for oil as much,” says Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management, a consulting firm based in Olympia, Washington.
Extracting metals from ore, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive. Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass. Recycling also reduces emissions of pollutants that can cause smog, acid rain and the contamination of waterways.
The China question
But the practice of shipping recyclables to China is controversial. Especially in Britain, politicians have voiced the concern that some of those exports may end up in landfills. Many experts disagree. According to Pieter van Beukering, an economist who has studied the trade of waste paper to India and waste plastics to China: “as soon as somebody is paying for the material, you bet it will be recycled.”
In fact, Dr van Beukering argues that by importing waste materials, recycling firms in developing countries are able to build larger factories and achieve economies of scale, recycling materials more efficiently and at lower environmental cost. He has witnessed as much in India, he says, where dozens of inefficient, polluting paper mills near Mumbai were transformed into a smaller number of far more productive and environmentally friendly factories within a few years.
Still, compared with Western countries, factories in developing nations may be less tightly regulated, and the recycling industry is no exception. China especially has been plagued by countless illegal-waste imports, many of which are processed by poor migrants in China's coastal regions. They dismantle and recycle anything from plastic to electronic waste without any protection for themselves or the environment.
The Chinese government has banned such practices, but migrant workers have spawned a mobile cottage industry that is difficult to wipe out, says Aya Yoshida, a researcher at Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies who has studied Chinese waste imports and recycling practices. Because this type of industry operates largely under the radar, it is difficult to assess its overall impact. But it is clear that processing plastic and electronic waste in a crude manner releases toxic chemicals, harming people and the environment—the opposite of what recycling is supposed to achieve.
Under pressure from environmental groups, such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, some computer-makers have established rules to ensure that their products are recycled in a responsible way. Hewlett-Packard has been a leader in this and even operates its own recycling factories in California and Tennessee. Dell, which was once criticised for using prison labour to recycle its machines, now takes back its old computers for no charge. And last month Steve Jobs detailed Apple's plans to eliminate the use of toxic substances in its products.
Far less controversial is the recycling of glass—except, that is, in places where there is no market for it. Britain, for example, is struggling with a mountain of green glass. It is the largest importer of wine in the world, bringing in more than 1 billion litres every year, much of it in green glass bottles. But with only a tiny wine industry of its own, there is little demand for the resulting glass. Instead what is needed is clear glass, which is turned into bottles for spirits, and often exported to other countries. As a result, says Andy Dawe, WRAP's glass-technology manager, Britain is in the “peculiar situation” of having more green glass than it has production capacity for.
Britain's bottle-makers already use as much recycled green glass as they can in their furnaces to produce new bottles. So some of the surplus glass is down-cycled into construction aggregates or sand for filtration systems. But WRAP's own analysis reveals that the energy savings for both appear to be “marginal or even disadvantageous”. Working with industry, WRAP has started a new programme called GlassRite Wine, in an effort to right the imbalance. Instead of being bottled at source, some wine is now imported in 24,000-litre containers and then bottled in Britain. This may dismay some wine connoisseurs, but it solves two problems, says Mr Dawe: it reduces the amount of green glass that is imported and puts what is imported to good use. It can also cut shipping costs by up to 40%.
The future of recycling
This is an unusual case, however. More generally, one of the biggest barriers to more efficient recycling is that most products were not designed with recycling in mind. Remedying this problem may require a complete rethinking of industrial processes, says William McDonough, an architect and the co-author of a book published in 2002 called “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things”. Along with Michael Braungart, his fellow author and a chemist, he lays out a vision for establishing “closed-loop” cycles where there is no waste. Recycling should be taken into account at the design stage, they argue, and all materials should either be able to return to the soil safely or be recycled indefinitely. This may sound like wishful thinking, but Mr McDonough has a good pedigree. Over the years he has worked with companies including Ford and Google.
An outgrowth of “Cradle to Cradle” is the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a non-profit working group that has developed guidelines that look beyond the traditional benchmarks of packaging design to emphasise the use of renewable, recycled and non-toxic source materials, among other things. Founded in 2003 with just nine members, the group now boasts nearly 100 members, including Target, Starbucks and Estée Lauder, some of which have already begun to change the design of their packaging.
Sustainable packaging not only benefits the environment but can also cut costs. Last year Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, announced that it wanted to reduce the amount of packaging it uses by 5% by 2013, which could save the company as much as $3.4 billion and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 667,000 tonnes. As well as trying to reduce the amount of packaging, Wal-Mart also wants to recycle more of it. Two years ago the company began to use an unusual process, called the “sandwich bale”, to collect waste material at its stores and distribution centres for recycling. It involves putting a layer of cardboard at the bottom of a rubbish compactor before filling it with waste material, and then putting another layer of cardboard on top. The compactor then produces a “sandwich” which is easier to handle and transport, says Jeff Ashby of Rocky Mountain Recycling, who invented the process for Wal-Mart. As well as avoiding disposal costs for materials it previously sent to landfill, the company now makes money by selling waste at market prices.
EPAIt does get recycled, honest
Evidently there is plenty of scope for further innovation in recycling. New ideas and approaches will be needed, since many communities and organisations have set high targets for recycling. Europe's packaging directive requires member states to recycle 60% of their glass and paper, 50% of metals and 22.5% of plastic packaging by the end of 2008. Earlier this year the European Parliament voted to increase recycling rates by 2020 to 50% of municipal waste and 70% of industrial waste. Recycling rates can be boosted by charging households and businesses more if they produce more rubbish, and by reducing the frequency of rubbish collections while increasing that of recycling collections.
Meanwhile a number of cities and firms (including Wal-Mart, Toyota and Nike) have adopted zero-waste targets. This may be unrealistic but Matt Hale, director of the office of solid waste at America's Environmental Protection Agency, says it is a worthy goal and can help companies think about better ways to manage materials. It forces people to look at the entire life-cycle of a product, says Dr Hale, and ask questions: Can you reduce the amount of material to begin with? Can you design the product to make recycling easier?
If done right, there is no doubt that recycling saves energy and raw materials, and reduces pollution. But as well as trying to recycle more, it is also important to try to recycle better. As technologies and materials evolve, there is room for improvement and cause for optimism. In the end, says Ms Krebs, “waste is really a design flaw.”
Monday, August 13, 2007
U.S. nuclear deal protests disrupt Indian parliament
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Noisy protests against a historic but controversial nuclear energy deal between India and the United States disrupted the Indian parliament on Monday as lawmakers demanded the government cancel the agreement.
Members of the regional Samajwadi Party, which is opposed to warming ties between Washington and New Delhi, shouted slogans against the deal in the centre of the lower house and refused to return to their seats. "Cancel the nuclear deal", "We don't want to be American stooges", the MPs shouted despite pleas by the speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, to allow the house to function.
Chatterjee said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would make a statement on the deal at 2:00 p.m. (0430 EDT) and address concerns over the landmark deal, seen as a symbol of a blossoming friendship between the two democracies.
But the angry lawmakers were unrelenting, forcing the house to be adjourned until Singh's statement.
The nuclear deal aims to give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in 30 years to help meet its soaring energy needs, even though it has stayed out of non-proliferation pacts and tested nuclear weapons.
First agreed in principle two years ago, the framework deal was approved by the U.S. Congress last December and the pact that governs nuclear trade between the two, called the 123 agreement, was finalized last month.
The 123 agreement has to get the backing of the U.S. Congress after India secures other international approvals.
The deal has been opposed by critics in both countries who say their governments are making too many compromises in their eagerness to seal it.
India's communist parties, whose support is crucial for the survival of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government, have rejected the deal but Singh has said he would not go back on it and dared the left parties to withdraw support.
The opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which initiated a process of bringing New Delhi and Washington closer when it was in power between 1998 and 2004, has also slammed the deal.
Members of the regional Samajwadi Party, which is opposed to warming ties between Washington and New Delhi, shouted slogans against the deal in the centre of the lower house and refused to return to their seats. "Cancel the nuclear deal", "We don't want to be American stooges", the MPs shouted despite pleas by the speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, to allow the house to function.
Chatterjee said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would make a statement on the deal at 2:00 p.m. (0430 EDT) and address concerns over the landmark deal, seen as a symbol of a blossoming friendship between the two democracies.
But the angry lawmakers were unrelenting, forcing the house to be adjourned until Singh's statement.
The nuclear deal aims to give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in 30 years to help meet its soaring energy needs, even though it has stayed out of non-proliferation pacts and tested nuclear weapons.
First agreed in principle two years ago, the framework deal was approved by the U.S. Congress last December and the pact that governs nuclear trade between the two, called the 123 agreement, was finalized last month.
The 123 agreement has to get the backing of the U.S. Congress after India secures other international approvals.
The deal has been opposed by critics in both countries who say their governments are making too many compromises in their eagerness to seal it.
India's communist parties, whose support is crucial for the survival of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government, have rejected the deal but Singh has said he would not go back on it and dared the left parties to withdraw support.
The opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which initiated a process of bringing New Delhi and Washington closer when it was in power between 1998 and 2004, has also slammed the deal.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Illegal immigration: our best foreign aid
Chinese swimmers reached the finals for Group B in L.A., while 3 silver and 1 bronze medals were snatched at the 24th Games, 7 Asian bests were created, and 10 national records were bettered. The heartening achievements, a break through zero, helped open a new era in China's swimming history. Chinese women rowers sprang a surprise by taking a silver and a bronze in the coxed fours and coxed eights respectively. Before that, no Asian athletes had ever entered the finals. In addition, the number of Chinese athletes in track and field witnessed a big increase, and notably, woman shot-putter Li Meisu gained a bronze—the only track and field medal for Asia at the Games.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Undocumented students deserve aid too
THE UTTER collapse of immigration reform in Congress was particularly devastating to one group: undocumented students. It leaves those who have excelled academically in our high schools, but who are not legal residents, ineligible for financial aid. Such a barrier means our students, through no fault of their own, have no path to success or citizenship.
I say "our students" because that is just who they are. We have invested in these children, providing them access to public education in our K-12 schools. Our teachers have encouraged them to learn, to compete and to succeed. It is only after these eager and ambitious young people gain college admission and apply for state or federal financial aid that we turn them away. We must not penalize these young people because their parents brought them here illegally.
The futures of high school graduates are being shaped now. These young people cannot wait out yet another attempt at broad immigration reform. Every year that passes, we deny another class of talented, keen young people hopeful futures for themselves and their families and relegate another generation to an existence on the margins of society.
It's a terrible waste of young talent — talent that this country desperately needs. Each year across the nation, 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school after having spent at least five years in this country. Because California is home to an estimated 40% of the nation's undocumented students, that means 20,000 or so are in this state.
Statistics on how many go on to the state's public colleges and universities are more difficult to come by. Applications don't require proof of citizenship if a student graduated from a California high school. At UC Berkeley, we may have dozens of such students, but we hear about their struggles only anecdotally or when they apply for financial aid, only to learn that they do not qualify.
Undergraduates who are California residents will pay as much as $25,000 for fees, room and board and books and supplies for the coming school year at Berkeley. It is no surprise that 70% of them rely on state and federal financial aid. But federal law prohibits making these same grants and loans available to undocumented students. They cannot even be hired for campus jobs.
How do they manage? Many are forced out of school for a semester or longer. They work multiple low-paying jobs hoping to save enough to re-enroll. It can take them many more years to graduate, yet they are determined. But other high-achieving California students never even consider attending the University of California or other universities. Even if they could pay for it, a college degree doesn't get them any closer to legal residency status, which they need to put their degrees to work.
To address the plight of undocumented students, Congress must ensure that the well-conceived and broadly supported federal DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act goes forward. The act, which provides access to financial aid and a thoughtfully mapped-out path to citizenship for qualified students, became entangled in the latest failed immigration bill. It is time to pass the act on its own merits.
Legislation that would create a California DREAM Act, offered by state Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), is moving forward in the Legislature. It allows all qualified students to apply for institutional aid at the University of California, California State University and the California Community Colleges.
Financial aid and a path to citizenship is a sound and humane investment. If we provide up-front loans and grants to talented students seeking to escape generations of poverty, society will be paid back many times over. With higher education, they will be able to raise their standard of living as they become taxpaying citizens. We must seize the opportunity to adopt these well-designed state and national policies that will be good for everyone — our students, their families, our state and nation.
I say "our students" because that is just who they are. We have invested in these children, providing them access to public education in our K-12 schools. Our teachers have encouraged them to learn, to compete and to succeed. It is only after these eager and ambitious young people gain college admission and apply for state or federal financial aid that we turn them away. We must not penalize these young people because their parents brought them here illegally.
The futures of high school graduates are being shaped now. These young people cannot wait out yet another attempt at broad immigration reform. Every year that passes, we deny another class of talented, keen young people hopeful futures for themselves and their families and relegate another generation to an existence on the margins of society.
It's a terrible waste of young talent — talent that this country desperately needs. Each year across the nation, 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school after having spent at least five years in this country. Because California is home to an estimated 40% of the nation's undocumented students, that means 20,000 or so are in this state.
Statistics on how many go on to the state's public colleges and universities are more difficult to come by. Applications don't require proof of citizenship if a student graduated from a California high school. At UC Berkeley, we may have dozens of such students, but we hear about their struggles only anecdotally or when they apply for financial aid, only to learn that they do not qualify.
Undergraduates who are California residents will pay as much as $25,000 for fees, room and board and books and supplies for the coming school year at Berkeley. It is no surprise that 70% of them rely on state and federal financial aid. But federal law prohibits making these same grants and loans available to undocumented students. They cannot even be hired for campus jobs.
How do they manage? Many are forced out of school for a semester or longer. They work multiple low-paying jobs hoping to save enough to re-enroll. It can take them many more years to graduate, yet they are determined. But other high-achieving California students never even consider attending the University of California or other universities. Even if they could pay for it, a college degree doesn't get them any closer to legal residency status, which they need to put their degrees to work.
To address the plight of undocumented students, Congress must ensure that the well-conceived and broadly supported federal DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act goes forward. The act, which provides access to financial aid and a thoughtfully mapped-out path to citizenship for qualified students, became entangled in the latest failed immigration bill. It is time to pass the act on its own merits.
Legislation that would create a California DREAM Act, offered by state Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), is moving forward in the Legislature. It allows all qualified students to apply for institutional aid at the University of California, California State University and the California Community Colleges.
Financial aid and a path to citizenship is a sound and humane investment. If we provide up-front loans and grants to talented students seeking to escape generations of poverty, society will be paid back many times over. With higher education, they will be able to raise their standard of living as they become taxpaying citizens. We must seize the opportunity to adopt these well-designed state and national policies that will be good for everyone — our students, their families, our state and nation.
Back Where They Belong
NYT
Gov. M. Jodi Rell vaulted Connecticut to the forefront of the juvenile justice reform movement when she signed a bill that removes 16- and 17-year-old offenders from the adult courts and puts them back into the juvenile justice system where they clearly belong. This new law comes in response to studies showing that children who do time in adult jails are more likely to become hardened criminals — and to commit more violent crime — than youthful offenders who are handled by the juvenile system.
The rush to try children as adults began in the early 1990s, after high-profile crimes like the Central Park jogger case, in which a young woman was badly beaten and raped in New York’s Central Park. Extreme violence and sexual assault clearly merit severe punishment. But today, in too many states, young people are routinely tried as adults, even those who commit nonviolent offenses.
In adult jails, these youthful offenders have little protection from being battered or sexually assaulted. Even those who leave jail determined not to go back, find that a conviction in adult courts closes off their chances for finding decent jobs.
After Connecticut’s law takes effect, New York and North Carolina will be the only two remaining states that automatically transfer 16-year-olds who commit crimes to adult courts. Unfortunately, nearly every state has laws that encourage prosecutors to try children as adults. The country needs to abandon these failed, destructive policies.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Is China's Air Clean or What? - Mixed Messages in researches
There is Richard MacGregor's article titled 750,000 a year killed by Chinese pollution accompanied by a Financial Times editorial titled China must come clean about its poisonous environment. Here is Richard MacGregor's report:
Beijing engineered the removal of nearly a third of a World Bank report on pollution in China because of concerns that findings on premature deaths could provoke “social unrest”. The report, produced in co-operation with Chinese government ministries over several years, found about 750,000 people die prematurely in China each year, mainly from air pollution in large cities.
China’s State Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) and health ministry asked the World Bank to cut the calculations of premature deaths from the report when a draft was finished last year, according to Bank advisers and Chinese officials. Advisers to the research team said ministries told them this information, including a detailed map showing which parts of the country suffered the most deaths, was too sensitive.
“The World Bank was told that it could not publish this information. It was too sensitive and could cause social unrest,” one adviser to the study told the Financial Times. Sixteen of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China, according to previous World Bank research.
Guo Xiaomin, a retired Sepa official who co-ordinated the Chinese research team, said some material was omitted from the pollution report because of concerns that the methodology was unreliable. But he also said such information on premature deaths “could cause misunderstanding”. “We did not announce these figures. We did not want to make this report too thick,” he said in an interview.
The pared-down report, “Cost of Pollution in China”, has yet to be officially launched but a version, which can be downloaded from the internet was released at a conference in Beijing in March.
Missing from this report are the research project’s findings that high air-pollution levels in Chinese cities is leading to the premature deaths of 350,000-400,000 people each year. A further 300,000 people die prematurely each year from exposure to poor air indoors, according to advisers, but little discussion of this issue survived in the report because it was outside the ambit of the Chinese ministries which sponsored the research. Another 60,000-odd premature deaths were attributable to poor-quality water, largely in the countryside, from severe diarrhoea, and stomach, liver and bladder cancers.
The mortality information was “reluctantly” excised by the World Bank from the published report, according to advisers to the research project.
Sepa and the health ministry declined to comment. The World Bank said that the findings of the report were still being discussed with the government. A spokesperson said: “The conference version of the report did not include some of the issues still under discussion.” She said the findings of the report were due to be released as a series of papers soon.
I look at this sentence: "Sepa and the health ministry declined to comment" and I think these people must be brain dead. Silence is likely to be taken to be admission of guilt that will generate a wave of criticisms. Why not deal with the issue head on?
First, consider the World Bank study. Actually, I have no information about this study itself, but I take it to be a top-quality study like similar studies on the same subject. The problem here is that it is hard to estimate the number of pre-mature deaths due to pollution. If you want to estimate the number of excess deaths due to the war in Iraq, you compare the mortality rates before and after the invasion and you get the number of excess deaths (e.g. the Lancet study). If you want to estimate the number of pre-mature deaths due to tobacco, you can compare the age-specific-adjusted mortality rates among smokers and non-smokers (e.g. American Medical Association study). In these cases, you always qualify your results by stating that there can be unaccounted for causes (and that was how the tobacco lobby managed to stall anti-tobacco legislation in the United States for several decades).
But if you want to estimate the number of pre-mature deaths due to pollution, you do what? You cannot compare the mortality rates of the present China against a China without pollution. The latter does not exist objectively. Therefore, you have to make some assumptions (e.g. compare mortality rates in high pollution cities versus low pollution ones), but these assumptions are tenuous. For example, the high pollution cities are the economically developed urban agglomerations while the lower pollution cities are economically undeveloped cities in the backlands. Are you sure that they would have the same mortality rates if pollution does not exist? Have you thought about the impact due to differences in income, diet, nutrition, health care services, etc? The technical explanations may elude most readers, and that may be the reason why Sepa and health ministry do not want to comment as it may only make matters worse. But their silence is making things worse now.
For illustration about why the technical description is hard, here is a statement made at a US Congressional hearing:
There are two ways of studying the health effects of particulate matter: time-series studies and cohort studies. Time series studies track people over short pollution episodes, correlating morbidity (illness) and mortality with daily pollution levels. As of 1997, numerous time-series studies had reported associations between PM and daily mortality and morbidity. Landmark studies include Dockery and Pope (1994), Schwartz (1994), Katsouyanni, et al. (1997). These studies were criticized because they were largely conducted in single locations chosen for unspecified reasons and were analyzed with different statistical approaches.
In 2000, a Health Effects Institute study used explicit criteria to select cities from a well-defined sampling frame and analyzed them in a consistent fashion. The results from this 90-city study corroborated previous results, including the Katsouyanni 15-city study and a recent meta-analysis of 29 studies in 23 locations in Europe and North and South America (Levy, et al. 2000).
Cohort studies follow initially healthy people over longer periods to see how they develop disease or die. Landmark cohort studies include the Harvard Six Cities Study (Dockery, et al. 1993) and the American Cancer Society Study (Pope, et al. 1995). These studies followed large numbers of individuals over many years and observed their rates of mortality. They found that long-term average mortality rates were 17 percent to 26 percent higher in those living in communities with higher levels of PM2E even after accounting for the effects of other risk factors. The results have been used to demonstrate lifespan reduction attributable to exposure to PM2E pollution. Other researchers have independently confirmed the findings of both of these studies.
A recent study reanalyzed the American Cancer Society (ACS) data (Pope, Thurston and Krewski 2002). This study tracked people over a longer time and controlled more extensively for individual risk factors. They compared data on particulate and gaseous air pollution with data on the cause of death among 500,000 people followed for 16 years by the ACS. After compensating for risk factors, as well as possible regional differences, the researchers found that every 10-microgram increase in fine particles per cubic meter of air produces a 6 percent increase in the risk of death by cardiopulmonary disease, and 8 percent for lung cancer. This is similar to the risk faced by those with long-term exposure to second-hand smoke.
What is the general public going to think about this type of description? They don't know and they only want a count of the number of dead people due to air pollution
Secondly, how would you interpret the figure 750,000? If you line the corpses in a row down the road, then it is a horrible sight. You would like it to be zero, but that is not happening anywhere in the world. So what is a realistic goal for China to aim for? Or to be even simpler, what is the number if China were just to meet the global average? Here is a global estimate from BBC:
The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel. Most are in poor countries.
So 3.0 + 1.6 million = 4.6 million people were killed worldwide by air pollution. China has about 20% of the population of the world. 20% of 4.6 million people is 920,000. This is for indoor/outdoor air pollution only. The World Bank estimate of 750,000 is for all pre-mature deaths in China, most of which are due to air pollution. Now what? It would seem that China has even fewer pollution-related deaths compared to the rest of the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
