Say Hello To Your "Eco-Friendly" Technology

What everyone needs to know about supposed eco-friendly technology, much of which is horribly damaging to the environment.

In Washington, Congress is fretting about the United States military’s dependence on Chinese rare earths, and has just ordered a study of potential alternatives.

Here in Guyun Village, a small community in southeastern China fringed by lush bamboo groves and banana trees, the environmental damage can be seen in the red-brown scars of barren clay that run down narrow valleys and the dead lands below, where emerald rice fields once grew.

Miners scrape off the topsoil and shovel golden-flecked clay into dirt pits, using acids to extract the rare earths. The acids ultimately wash into streams and rivers, destroying rice paddies and fish farms and tainting water supplies.

There are 17 rare-earth elements — some of which, despite the name, are not particularly rare — but two heavy rare earths, dysprosium and terbium, are in especially short supply, mainly because they have emerged as the miracle ingredients of green energy products. Tiny quantities of dysprosium can make magnets in electric motors lighter by 90 percent, while terbium can help cut the electricity usage of lights by 80 percent. Dysprosium prices have climbed nearly sevenfold since 2003, to $53 a pound. Terbium prices quadrupled from 2003 to 2008, peaking at $407 a pound, before slumping in the global economic crisis to $205 a pound.

The biggest user of heavy rare earths in the years ahead could be large wind turbines, which need much lighter magnets for the five-ton generators at the top of ever-taller towers. Vestas, a Danish company that has become the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturer, said that prototypes for its next generation used dysprosium, and that the company was studying the sustainability of the supply. Goldwind, the biggest Chinese turbine maker, has switched from conventional magnets to rare-earth magnets.

Executives in the $1.3 billion rare-earths mining industry say that less environmentally damaging mining is needed, given the importance of their product for green energy technologies. Developers hope to open mines in Canada, South Africa and Australia, but all are years from large-scale production and will produce sizable quantities of light rare earths. Their output of heavy rare earths will most likely be snapped up to meet rising demand from the wind turbine industry.

Pandas Aren't Facing Extinction Due to Evolution; They're Facing Extinction Due to Humans

Certainly, it's hard when anybody says, "just let the species die." Yet that's exactly what one British naturalist is saying about Pandas, declaring that it costs too much to keep them alive, and that they've worked themselves into an evolutionary "cul-de-sac." Even setting aside my primary disagreement based on the fact that for whatever reason, I really like pandas, I have to disagree with him for one very simple reason that this article highlights:

Giant pandas are confined to forest areas high in the mountains of southwestern China and have to consume large quantities of bamboo to survive.

They number around 1,600 and are threatened by agriculture, logging and China's increasing human population.

It seems to me that they aren't so much "doomed" due to the evolutionary path that they've taken. If left alone to their environment, they would have more than enough bamboo and land to continue surviving just fine. Unfortunately, deforestation, logging, and farming are destroying the panda's otherwise-supportive habitat. That's not an evolutionary cul-de-sac; it's one more example of humanity doing all it can to destroy other species, ecosystems, and the environment in the search of short-term profit.

Bye-Bye Tigers

India may be bringing up the issue of Chinese poaching of their dwindling tiger populations in bilateral talks this week, but does anyone think the Chinese are going to do anything about it? With traditional Chinese medicine using rare cat products such as tiger penis soup for fertility, with rising prosperity in China leading to a huge surge in demand for such dubious products, and with high-ranking members of the Chinese government major consumers of them, I think we are seeing the last wild tigers roam the Earth. I don't know much about captive breeding programs for tigers, but I hope they work because otherwise we are going to lose the great cats.

Commemmorating the Twentieth Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre

Tomorrow (today in China) marks the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in China, and the New York Times has been doing a great job covering the event leading up to today/tomorrow. Among other stories, they have an amazing story from one of the soldiers involved in the massacre, Chen Guang, who was only 17 at the time. Chen has turned photographs of the event into paintings that are rather powerful. More importantly, though, Chen is one of the few soldiers who has begun publicly relating the events of that night from a soldier's point of view. Up to now, the student leaders who escaped and the foreign press members who were present have dominated the way the events of June 5th (and beforehand) have been narrated, and understandably so. However, stories and impressions like those from Mr. Chen are as important and, given the military's and government's efforts to whitewash the event, rarer than any others. Thanks to Chen's bravery, a much richer view of Tiananmen has begun to emerge.

That's certainly not to take away from students' and foreign press eyewitness accounts, and Nicholas Kristof's memories and testimony of the events he witnessed in 1989 is worth listening to in its entirety, and the article about the various paths that students and protestors in 1989 have taken is worth reading in full, as well, for it really does a great job getting at the ways China and the leaders and participants of the 1989 movement itself have changed in the last 20 years, and the difficult issues many former protestors face between getting on with their lives and reconciling the events and their beliefs from 20 years ago.

There's also a discussion among various dissenters and scholars about what dissent means in China today, how dissent is manifested, and the lessons the Chinese government itself learned from 1989 when it comes to dealing with dissent.

Finally, yesterday, in their photojournalist blog, they talked to the four photographers who took variations of the famed "tank man" photograph that came to be associated with the massacre. The insights of the four man vary, but one of them, Charlie Cole, raises an interesting and important point:

In my opinion, it is regretful that this image alone has become the iconic “mother” of the Tiananmen tragedy. This tends to overshadow all the other tremendous work that other photographers did up to and during the crackdown. Some journalists were killed during this coverage and almost all risked being shot at one time or another. Jacques Langevin, Peter and David Turnley, Peter Charlesworth, Robin Moyer, David Berkwitz, Rei Ohara, Alon Reininger, Ken Jarecke and a host of others contributed to the fuller historical record of what occurred during this tragedy and we should not be lured into a simplistic, one-shot view of this amazingly complex event.

He's absolutely right. One of the things that led to me becoming a historian was the Tiananmen Square Massacre. When I was still trying to decide whether I was going to focus on literature or history as my major, I took the introductory historiography class, in which we were expected to write a paper. Remembering and having been intrigued by the "tank man" since 1989, I opted to write about the Massacre. While researching, I learned just how complicated and complex the events leading up to June 5th, 1989, had been, involving not just student rebellion and a repressive governmental response, but complex internal dynamics, conflict and cooperation between students and workers, internal disagreements within the government of Deng Xiaopeng, and even generational issues dating back to the Cultural Revolution and beyond. I was so fascinated by all these complexities, twitsts, and processes at play, that the die was cast - I opted to be a historian. Even while working on Brazil in the past few years, I've repeatedly returned to Tiananmen and the similarities and differences between that student movement and others in Latin America and elsewhere (and hope to maybe make that a book someday). In that regard, Cole is absolutely right: the tank man image, while amazing, ultimately simplifies "this amazingly complex event," and one that people will hopefully stop and reflect upon this week, even while China continues to fight to prevent any commemmoration or historical remembrance of the event.

China's Efforts to Impose "Modernity" on the Uighur city of Kashgar

Although it's outside of my usual area of expertise, I was fascinated and saddened by the story last week on China's efforts to destroy the old city in the Uighur city of Kashgar, in the western-most part of the country and a major stop for centuries as part of the silk road.

Over the next few years, city officials say, they will demolish at least 85 percent of this warren of picturesque, if run-down homes and shops. Many of its 13,000 families, Muslims from a Turkic ethnic group called the Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs), will be moved.

In its place will rise a new Old City, a mix of midrise apartments, plazas, alleys widened into avenues and reproductions of ancient Islamic architecture “to preserve the Uighur culture,” Kashgar’s vice mayor, Xu Jianrong, said in a phone interview.

I'm not an expert in planning, but I fail to see how destroying centuries-old homes is any means to "preserve" a culture. But the Chinese government's project is proving far more damaging than a simple assault on the culture wrapped up in the buildings:

Hajji and his wife lost their life’s savings caring for a sick child, and the city’s payment to demolish their home will not cover rebuilding it. Their option is to move to a distant apartment, which will force them to close their shop, their only source of income.

“The house belongs to us,” said Hajji’s wife, who refused to give her name. “In this kind of house, many, many generations can live, one by one. But if we move to an apartment, every 50 or 70 years, that apartment is torn down again.

“This is the biggest problem in our lives. How can our children inherit an apartment?”

This really gets at the sinister nature of the project. It's not just destroying these people's homes in the name of "cultural preservation." It's also stripping them of their livelihood and the pride in family ownership of a home through generations.

The article calls the government's explanations "befuddling." The main argument is that the Chinese government claims the homes are "unsafe" in the event of an earthquake, and that it will build stronger apartments based on the Uighur architectural style. Now this may be true. However, it's worth remembering last year's earthquake in May, in which government-constructed schools collapsed easily, killing thousands of students. If the same government effort goes into these apartment houses as it went into that schools, it seems the Uighurs homes (which have survived centuries already, presumably including making it through earthquakes) may not any less safe than newly constructed buildings. That doesn't mean it will be the same effort - the buildings very well may be an improvement in terms of structural safety, and there will be modern conveniences like plumbing and garbage collection (something the article points out is lacking in the old city as it stands). Additionally, the government no doubt probably hopes that the destruction of the Uighur old city, with its close quarters and familiarity among neighbors and residents, will reduce the Uighur separatist movement's ability to promote its message, too.

Still, at the end of the day, destroying 85% of an area rich in a minority culture and history, against the wishes of many of that minority's citizens, all in the name of "modernity," strikes me as a truly sad tale for those who are being displaced.

China Turning to Brazil for Naval Training

Rob over at LG&M recently broke down the fascinating report that the Chinese are pushing forward their aircraft carrier program. As his IR/military policy posts always are, this one is outstanding, but this part in particular really grabbed my attention:

The PLAN has apparently arranged to begin training its carrier pilots on board the Sao Paulo, Brazil's full deck aircraft carrier.
[...]Sao Paulo, formerly the French Foch, operates A-4 Skyhawks. It appears from this interview that the PLAN has arranged with the Brazilian Navy to train some of its pilots and crews on board Sao Paulo. It's fair to say that this represents a substantial step forward for Chinese naval aviation. This agreement with Brazil will presumably allow the Chinese access to Brazilian naval aviation experts in addition to the carrier itself. This should accelerate the development of Chinese naval aviation
by quite a bit.

I either didn't know or had forgotten that Brazil had an aircraft carrier, and I was certainly surprised to know that it is ahead of China in this regard. Rob does an excellent job outlining why training is so difficult and important. He also does a fine job quickly explaining why China didn't go to the U.S., France, or Russia for training, but I think he misses something. He basically suggests that Brazil was the default trainer for the Chinese, given the reasons the U.S., French, and Russia have to not train China. While it's true in one sense that Brazil was the default ally for China, there was nothing dictating that Brazil had to agree to help China develop its naval power. This isn't a case where China bullied Brazil (and, though it's a gross simplification of complex issues, I like the idea of a country without aircraft carriers threatening a country with an aircraft carrier); through economic agreements, China needs Brazil as much (if not moreso) for its agricultural imports (especially soy), industry, and (down the road) oil as Brazil needs China's money and investment. I certainly don't believe this was a case of Brazil getting forced into an agreement it otherwise wouldn't have made. Yet Brazil signed on happily, with the Minister of Defense going to China later this year to further work out I think it's also evidence of the strengthening ties between China and Brazil, not just economically, but politically.

Of course, I don't envision some future "Sino-Brazilian" hegemon or anything. However, the agreement is mutually beneficial for both China and Brazil; China gets training, and Brazil strengthens its reputation and power as a global force. These efforts have been primarily economic up to this point, but this latest military agreement fits within a broader pattern of each trying to increase its role in international politics. The agreement on the carrier training was apparently part of the private meetings between China and Brazil during Lula's trip to Beijing last week, itself a noteworthy event as China and Brazil strengthened their trade relations in what they hope is a mutually beneficial agreement that would reduce both countries' dependency on the U.S. economy (and also agreed to jointly send 3 satellites into space by 2013). China will send military leaders to Brazil to train, and Defense Minister Nelson Jobim will be going to China in September, presumably when the details of the arrangement will be worked out.

Although Brazil has little it is materially gaining directly from China in this agreement, I think it could be the biggest "winner" here. That a country as powerful as China is turning to Brazil (and only partly out of necessity) is a real coup in Brazil's efforts to demonstrate its equality with the other major world powers. Nothing is assured down the road, but other countries are certainly taking notice of this. I doubt anybody outside of South America is worried about Brazil's military potential, and they shouldn't be; Brazil isn't gunning (no pun intended) for global military domination, and this is certainly not the first time that Brazil has demonstrated its growing power among the biggest international leaders, be it in economic, diplomatic, or military aspects. However, it does mark another major demonstration that Brazil isn't going away anytime soon, and it's a major feather in Brazil's cap in strengthening its position in the international community.

An Eventful Week in Brazil: Argentine Agreements, Challenging China, and a Major Court Ruling in Indigenous Rights

Brazil and Argentina met this week to re-affirm their economic and political relations. The meeting itself sounded innocuous enough - standard diplomatic promises to "iron out" some minor trade issues over things like import licenses on shoes and textiles (exciting!), as well as Brazil signing a deal with Argentina to help with the recent nationalization of Aerolineas Argentinas.

While that all seems minor enough, the language on China coming out of a business leaders' meeting between reps from both countries during Presidents Kirchner's visit was far more interesting. It's no secret to anybody that China has become a growing power in trade with Latin America. However, not all that trade is good, even for Latin America, as it has also been flooded with inexpensive products that undercut national economies in South and Central America, and reps from that meeting between the two countries didn't pull punches in mentioning China's role in the hemisphere, either commenting:

“The objective now is to fight against the common evil, Chinese products which are sold at dumping prices[...] With bilateral differences back on the right track, we must address the outside enemy."

That's some pretty tough talk there for an issue that hasn't really come up yet. Of course the Argentine and Brazilian business leaders who met have their own interests to defend, and Chinese products no doubt cut into their market somewhat. Nonetheless, even if criticisms of Chinese products undercutting local companies in South America seems fair enough, referring to China as "the outside enemy" raises eyebrows a bit. If this had come from Kirchner's or Lula's mouth, it would be even more shocking and newsworthy, but even as it stands right now, it does hint at future issues facing Latin American economies as they try to increase relations with China without having their own national companies and economies being undermined by cheaper Chinese products.

Also in Brazil, the Supreme Court refused to split up an indigenous reserve half the size of Belgium in the Amazon. White farmers had insisted it was too much land for the twenty-thousand indigenous inhabitants, while logging, mining, and agricultural companies had said the reservation's existence (required in the 1988 constitution) was "an obstacle to growth."

This is a major victory for indigenous rights and the environment in Brazil, and I have absolutely no sympathy for either the farmers nor the corporations. The damage farmers, miners, loggers, and agribusiness have caused in the Amazon is already irreparable, and the cycle probably won't end without measures like the court's ruling. While indigenous people will still obviously need to cultivate the land in ways they seem fit, and while I hate essentialist notions of indigenous peoples as being "in harmony" with the earth, I think it's a fair bet that they will manage the forest in the reserve better than logging and mining companies do - hell, by simply not clearing hundreds of acres a month, they'd be managing the environment better than the corporations. It's also a huge victory for re-affirming indigenous rights in Brazil, which often go unheeded in a society that considers itself a wide spectrum of racial mixture, but which often leaves indigenous peoples out of the equation in the present even while acknowledging their past.

The ruling won't just make all of the entanglements and problems go away. Violence will persist, and even some indigenous peoples don't like the ruling and feel it perpetuates racist stereotypes by trying to keep the indigenous communities "cut off from modernity." Nonetheless, the importance of this legal precedent cannot and should not be ignored, either. The Constitution of 1988 said that indigenous peoples were to get their traditional lands back, and when the businesses and farmers, miners and loggers, pushed and pushed, trying to effectively undo the constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution stands, and the reserves cannot be split up. And that alone is a major step for indigenous rights in Brazil. We can only hope it leads to real gains for the communities, the environment, and Brazil overall.

Poverty and Conservation

This is an interesting and useful story about Chinese biologist Pan Wenshi's mission to protect the white-headed langur and its forest habitat.

What is so useful about it is that it again shows that the way to protecting wildlife and ecosystems is alleviating the poverty of local residents. People use the forests to survive. They ate the white-headed langur for food. They cut down the forests for firewood. But Pan went in and built biogas digesters, which use the methane produced by domestic animal waste for fuel. By giving them these cheap devices, the people had much less reason to cut down trees. Now they could focus on other activities, making their lives easier and protecting the forest at the same time.

Alleviating poverty is not the only needed course of action. A huge problem in China is that newly rich and powerful people want to use wild animals for food and medicine as conspicious consumption. That had become a huge problem for the white-headed langur. But with the help of locals, newly interested in conservation because not destroying the forest was making their lives better, that has been curtailed for the present.

This story has larger significance for environmental efforts worldwide. Environmental organizations must make it worth people's while to protect nature. We can go in as westerners and try to save land and wildlife but without strong governments dedicated to that protection, local residents are likely to ignore those laws and go on trying to feed their families. Environmental protection must go hand in hand with economic justice.

A Fair Question

From a Times article on showing fortune cookies to Chinese people:

"The Chinese...would often tell me after trying the curved vanilla-flavored wafers, “Americans are so strange, why are they putting pieces of paper in their cookies?"

Indeed.

The Chinese and Greenhouse Gases

This post at Global Labor Strategies is a nice summary of the Chinese problem with greenhouse gases.

A few notes:

1. I have wondered in the past whether China would be able to continue developing as a world power because of the massive environmental damage they are sustaining. I still feel this way. We are starting to see the beginnings of these problems as rising fuel prices are leading to food shortages among the world's poor. China is of course burning incredible amounts of coal to fuel their expansion. While they have lots of coal, it is not really sustainable as a long-term solution because of the incredible air pollution and because of world opinion.

But one way China may be able to contain these environmental costs and continue their development is becoming the world's leader in renewable energy. Certainly they have the centralized government structure to make this happen if it truly becomes a national priority. Turning a significant amount of resources to wind and solar energy makes a tremendous amount of sense for the Chinese and I expect they will embrace and improve upon these technologies as their way of maintaining their growth.

2. The author makes a very important point about western hypocrisy toward China. The United States and Europe continually chastise China for their greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, not only does the United States pump more greenhouse gases into the environment, but a huge percentage of those Chinese emissions result from them producing products for the developed world!

I have long been critical of people who talk about a "post-industrial society." This makes no sense at all. The United States, Europe, and Japan are just as reliant upon the Industrial Revolution as they ever have been. But they have exported the costs of the Industrial Revolution to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. So China, Mexico, and Indonesia have to deal with industrial pollution, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions. But so long as the developing world is demanding the products the Industrial Revolution provides for the cheap prices only available in the Global South, we are just as responsible for those emissions as the nation of production.

In addition, rising fuel prices are convincing some western nations to renege on environmental agreements. For instance, according to the GLS article, Italy's major electric producer is switching their largest plant from oil to coal and expects to increase their reliance on coal to 33% of its energy needs from the current 14% by 2013. The hypocrisy just got ranker. I have little doubt that Americans will engage in similar actions as our gas prices rise.

Pot, meet kettle.

This isn't to say that the West needs to agree with developing world leaders who use the history of western despoiling of the environment as an excuse for their own. Just yesterday, I chastised Brazil's Lula for saying these things. But at the same time, we can't just ignore our own consumption and criticize the producers.

3. The author closes with a very brief discussion of how climate change is a working-class problem. But it feels tacked on. Labor strategists have not done a good job of showing why environmentalism is a working-class problem. Working-class people have tended to be more resistant to environmentalism for several reasons, including the potential of losing their jobs, as well as cultural differences that have long alienated working-class people. Part of the problem is that these environmental problems seem so huge and unmanageable that it is hard to figure out what anyone is supposed to do, not to mention workers who have relatively little power in American society, who are trying to feed their families, and maybe watch a little TV in the evening.

I don't necessarily have any answers here either. But it is worth saying that environmental problems will affect working-class people faster and with greater effect. We are already seeing this with the global working-class, as poor people are facing higher food prices that they flat out cannot afford. Hunger is becoming a major world issue again because of fuel prices. It seems to me that labor needs leaders who make environmental issues central to their agendas. Organizing for inexpensive mass transit seems like a very intelligent idea for instance because it would provide their constituents cheap transportation so they wouldn't have to drive. Pressing for new technologies in electric vehicles seems like another possible place where labor could make a difference. It's going to take real leadership though because these solutions are several years down the road at the earliest.

The Toothless Tiger No More?

I am a little skeptical, but nonetheless encouraged by Wu Zhong's article on the Chinese government's increasing commitment to basic environmental controls. The likely creation of a Ministry of Environment certainly can't hurt. However, environmental law has been rendered moot in much of China by corruption, local control over enforcement, the prioritizing of economic growth, and unadulterated greed.

While I am not confident that the Chinese are really going to become environmentally friendly, my knowledge of U.S. history suggests that it could happen. If you asked the world in 1880 whether environmental degradation would slow down in the United States by 1910, you probably would have been laughed at. The U.S. was going full-steam ahead in its industrial revolution, spewing chemicals into the air, water, and ground; hunting a wide variety species to near-extinction, destroying ecosystems with aplomb, and without even the slightest governmental interest in halting this decline. Yet 30 years later, wide-ranging changes had taken place. While the U.S. has always had an up and down relationship with environmental protection, changes can happen surprisingly fast.

Given China's extremely rapid industrialization combined with the power of its central government, if it decides to commit to cutting back on pollution, it actually could do it fairly quickly. Perhaps some government officials are embarrassed by the international condemnation of air pollution in Beijing coming up on the Olympics. Perhaps some actually care about the environment. Perhaps they are worried about rural unrest from people who are sick of living in a dumping ground for pollution. Maybe it is a combination of all these things. But if China were to decide to promote environmental protections, they actually could become an international leaders as fast as they became an industrial power.

Now, I don't actually think this is going to happen anytime soon, but Wu suggests that at least there is room for hope.

The Best Thing We Can Do For The Earth

The best thing we can do for the Earth is to commit mass suicide.

Normally, this sounds like some sarcastic remark I would make in response to a really dumb idea, but actually I mean it. Very high on my reading list is Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, reviewed today in the Times. Weisman points out that while the immediate decline of humans would lead to plants and animals dealing with our mess, particularly of the nuclear variety, over time, the planet would recover from the worst species ever to set foot on it.

In other news, the Chinese have made it their goal to kill every animal in Myanmar to satisfy their growing taste for exotic meat and medicine.

Historical Image of the Day

Nixon and Mao, 1972

Brazil, China, and Farming

There is an article worth looking at at the New York Times on China's growing need for Brazilian soy production, and the ties that is creating between the two states. The article is a little "old" (it appeared late last week, but I was out of town), but it offers some important insights into markets, trade relations, and even the impact of environmental degradation on the global economy.

The article does a fairly good job showing the role Brazil is playing in global trade among developing countries. It highlights the potential for economic growth between two countries as China expands its market and other developing-world countries (in this case, Brazil) form trade agreements beyond the U.S. What goes unsaid is how this relationship between Brazil and China is part of a broader effort on Brazil's part to reap strong economic relations between Brazil and other developing countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The goal here has been to break depndency on American and European markets (which have generally cast aside Latin America when it is convenient, leaving the American economies to suffer severely). As with any buisness venture, such an approach has its risks, but the agreements the Brazilian government, particularly under Lula, have made promise much more profit than setback for Brazil, as well as the added incentive of not relying on the U.S. with its tariffs and with the World Bank and IMF dictating terms all the time.

As for the cons of the production, the article is a little...vague. Certainly, it is true that Brazil's soy production in the state of Mato Grosso (which, as the article says, is 1/3 of the country's production) have been plagued recently by drought, and the highway infrastructure here in Brazil....well, it isn't the U.S. interstate system. Farmers of course always run the risk of drought, and many may not have seen the profit they had hoped for, but it is also worth taking into account that the article only talks about Mato Grosso - I have no idea what the production status is of the other 2/3 of the country, but the article doesn't say, either.

More problematic is the complaint that sales of primary items like soy makes Brazil's economy too dependent on obtaining secondary items. Frankly, I think this argument rings a little hollow. It's true, Brazil is reaping a pretty good windfall from these sales, and if it were only soy that were driving Brazil's economy, that could cause problems. But it isn't. Brazil's secondary and tertiary production rates are growing rapidly too, so I think the complaint is a little too cautious in this regard. Additionally, while the article doesn't say exactly who is raising the critiques, there is no doubt opposition from some of the neo-liberal politicians (many of whom have a foundation in dependency theory from the 1970s-1980s), so it is definitely worth taking with a grain of salt.

Environmentally, it touches upon a few key items, too. First, there is the declining water resources in China, which are fueling its global expansion in trade. Erik has talked before about the role of water (or lack thereof) in China's (and India's) ability to continue growing and the article definitely hits upon that aspect rather throughly, with little I can add.

However, there are also important implications for the Brazilian environment here. Just because the article claims that Brazil can double its 175 million acres of production without touching the rainforest doesn't mean farmers won't leave the forest untouched. This is a particuarly dangerous area, for the vast increase of profits from soy production via trade with China may lead to soy-plantation-owners spreading into ecologically endangered areas, doing decades of damage to the forest for the proverbial quick buck. This doesn't mean they will encroach upon the forest for certain, but given the past, it is certainly an issue worth keeping an eye on.

In Case You Forgot How Awful U.S. Corporations Are

I cannot recommend highly enough Brendan Smith, Tim Costello, and Jeremy Brecher's article "Chinese Heat is on U.S. Sweatshop Lobby" at Asia Times. These authors detail how U.S. corporations are working to undermine the tiny improvements for workers in Chinese law pending before the National People's Congress in Beijing. U.S. corporations, especially Microsoft and Google (with their laughable "Don't be Evil" slogan) are particularly behind this lobby. They are threatening to move jobs from China to nations with even less worker protections such as Pakistan. They have had an effect. The law was first significantly watered down to undermine labor unions and then was not even taken up at this year's Congress meeting.

Luckily, people like the authors have done an effective job of publicizing this evil coming from corporations. A significant number of congressional Democrats such as Barney Frank and Barbara Lee are working to support the Chinese workers. And a few corporations such as Nike also are publicly supporting giving these workers more rights.

Let this be a reminder of just how awful most corporations are. The level of social responsibility is nil. They have undermined the hard-fought gains of American workers and attack workers of the developing world for demanding even the most basic human rights. They dump whatever they want to into the environment and then lobby against any regulations to protect the human body and natural world. If there is a Hell, I can name a few corporate leaders and managers who have a nice, hot spot waiting for them.

You can see the author's expanded findings here.

Asian Rivers

I have stated more than once before that the Asian environmental crisis will undermine the rise of Asian nations to world power. Alan Boyd's Asia Times story on the horrid conditions of Asian rivers only makes me feel stronger about this. Dams, human population growth, and especially massive unregulated industrial pollution are placing these rivers in extreme danger. The Yangtze is the worst but the Ganges, Mekong, Indus, and most other major Asian rivers also face incredible challenges. Multiple species have already gone extinct and thousands of others, from large water mammals to plants, are in serious trouble.

As Tom Le Quense from the World Wildlife Federation says, "We're talking about a complete collapse of the system - they're so polluted, so over-extracted or so cut up by dams that it's really not functioning as a river anymore. It's a challenge that humanity faces not far off the scale of climate change." I could not agree more. Moreover, I simply do not see how China and India can grow very much more and not face the complete collapse of their environmental base.

Without functioning water systems, human civilization cannot survive. That sounds apocalyptic, but it is also true. China, India, and to a lesser extent nations like Vietnam, Burma, and Laos, are reaching a point where they have to decide whether they want to survive.