Archive for the 'Environmental' Category

SED, Round IV: Washington

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

 sed4_small.jpg

When: June 17 and 18

Where: US Naval Academy - Annapolis, MD

Who: Co-Chairs US Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and Vice Premier Wang Qishan

Why: To strengthen and deepen the bilateral economic relationship through actions to:

  • raise questions
  • seek consensus
  • implement results
  • prevent trade protectionism and conservatism from hampering the trade cooperation

What: An overview of China and the US coming to the table to discuss the following areas:

  1. Macroeconomic Cooperation and Financial Services.  The countries pledge to work together toward sustained growth, stability in price and financial systems, and agreed to continue a collaborative approach to sharing information on issues of mutual interest.
  2. Investment in people and Product Quality and Food Safety. Agreed the need to open up communication regardingt mitigating economic risks associated with aging populations in both countries, and to use this as a platform for investigating ways to provide better healthcare and retirement services. Bilateral efforts to continue activities determined at SED III for product safety on an ongoing basis.
  3. Cooperation on Energy and the Environment. Mutual understanding of the importance of cooperating to address challenges. Both countries expressed the desire to strengthen commitments to energy and the environment.
  4. Trade and Competitiveness. Challenges of trade were discussed, as well as actions that would support each nation’s economy within the larger picture of globalization.
  5. Investment. China and US came to an agreement on a series of actions that will be taken to create a mutually beneficial investment path for and between both.

Boycotting the Olympics? How about Boycotting your SUV?

Friday, March 14th, 2008

hummer_h6_players_edition_dw.jpg
(Hummer H6 Player Edition is a $103,000 “Super SUV,” six-wheeled with a horse power of 325hp and torque of 365 lbs-ft)

Darfur and the Olympic games. China is a key player in both, but rather than throwing a blanket over both issues to determine cause-effect and prescribe a solution, we need to be more careful about how we are classifying these relationships.

East vs. West Models of Economy. The Chinese model of market-based economic development has always been a “natural, inward-focused growth as opposed to the unnatural trade-driven growth of Europe, which relied on the expropriation of the raw materials of the rest of the world.*” Although China has benefited from the exploitation of subordinate classes and countries, it achieved as much merely playing to the level of the league it was drafted into. 

During the Mao era, China experienced social achievements, particularly in literacy and healthcare, that worked to lay the foundation for the economic growth the country has recently experienced. Before the late imperial China was defeated and forced to open its doors to trade with West, China’s economic strategy was based on self-improvement and sought growth organically, from what its own soil had to offer. 

Once strong-armed for its tea, silk, and porcelain, these assets have long since been replaced with manufactured goods, cheap labor, and oil. Western colonists have been credited with introducing industrialization to East Asia, but now China is to blame for pursuing the resources it needs to sustain the survival of its people, and the growing demands of world.

I can’t help but feel that China is acting as a natural global stabilizer, passing down savings to poorer nations who cannot afford to support the luxuries and extravagance of the American way of life. Since its economic rise, China is able to offer poorer societies attractive alternatives to trade and investment*.

Currently, as China works with Sudan to secure an oil stream from the Gulf, Americans are quick to cry foul, label the 2008 Olympics as the “Genocide Games,” and attribute China’s boom to a “Red Storm Rising.”

The Oil Crisis. Just as the US taught China to find success as a globally-competitive trader, it could take the time to educate China on prioritization of human rights and energy trade. How is the US presence in Iraq any more forgivable than China’s interest in Sudan? China’s reason for its relationship with Sudan is no more obscured than the ambiguity surrounding why American families are still missing their husbands, mothers, brothers, and daughters.

On top of its link to Sudan through arms and oil, China is securing liquid gold that the US is losing out on. By aggressively seeking out oil sources in Africa and the Middle East, “with countries hostile to the United States, such as Iran and Sudan,” Americans are armed with all the reason in the world to chastise China for edging out the US for oil resources / trading with frenemies / usurping its position as World Economic Leader enabling genocide activity in Darfur.

Not to mention that the economic impact a growing China has on American income has been predicted to be surprisingly modest (imports of oil are still less than 4 percent of national income*), given the US propensity for increasing its income through technological advance. Moving forward, this means that assuming that oil prices double and Americans continue to burn through oil at the same rate, the hit to the American economy is recoverable in less than two years of normal growth.

On average, Americans consume the equivalent of six gallons of gas per person per day. Americans also drive comparably large cars (some of them de-commissioned military luxury vehicles) and air-condition enormous homes (at an average of 900 square feet per child)*. These are the same Americans that are responding to a poll in the Washington Express, which asked “Should the US boycott the Beijing Olympics to protest human rights violation?” 55% of the respondents answered yes.

The Olympics Games. President Bush, British PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are all confirmed to attend the 2008 Olympic gala opening ceremony on August 8. Political leaders themselves are refusing to politicize the games in the interest of the Olympic spirit.

Outside of the obvious hypocrisy (the US will trade with and borrow from China, but it draws the line at a footrace?), I hardly think it fair to penalize the world’s best athletes who have trained to compete at an event couched as a juncture for global celebration.

 


* http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=zm1qcnxs5p3v7pwkq58f7hb3jlh8l0fk

US and China: Environmentally-Friendly?

Monday, December 17th, 2007

china_three_gorges5.jpg
China’s Three Gorges on the Yangtze River

With measured holiday celebrations by Americans this year, the US finds itself in a thick and thorny growing trade deficit with
China. Recent reports by the US Commerce Department that overall trade deficits have declined in the past two consecutive quarters may do little to assuage Congress members, who continue to push for punitive action against China for currency manipulation to leverage its trade surplus. To many, a more realistic metric of this damage is better understood when translated into an American loss of more than 1.9 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. An even bleaker truth is illustrated when comparing US-China exports to imports:

We export cotton, we import clothing. We export hides, we bring in shoes. We export scrap metal. We bring back machinery. We’re exporting waste paper, we bring back cardboard boxes with products inside them.  

In stark contrast, Europeans are busying themselves with preparations to contract with the PRC for nuclear reactors and Airbus passenger jets amounting to nearly $30 Billion USD.

The US and China engaged in the third session of the US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) hosted in Beijing, to make progress on trade discrepancies hindering its relationship. Key issues of focus included food and product safety, energy and the environment, and transparency. Echoing US concerns during this session were the EU, Japan, and the WTO.

With its rising tally of unflattering trade practices ranging from unsafe toy production to negligence of intellectual property rights, China’s impulse to shake its finger at protectionism to save face comes as no surprise. US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez called-out Chinese trade malpractices during USSED III as he beckoned, “I would have to assume that the brand ‘China’ is very important to the Chinese.”

Warning notes were sounded as Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi cautioned, “There have been some disharmonious notes in China-US relations this year. The inclination to politicise (trade) issues has increased. . . Trade restrictions, and protectionist measures, can only hurt both sides”

Optimists maintain that US-China trade relations will find common ground in opportunities to honor their commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy use for economic output. As Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury projects, “The environment is an area that is “easier to cooperate on. It’s something the Chinese have common ground with members of Congress on.”