Green Lights for Red China
Following the 1973 decision by OAPEC to enact an oil embargo on the United States and the subsequent energy crisis, reliance on foreign oil supplies transformed into a significant national security issue. Investment in renewable energy sources was thus transformed from the pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams of tree-huggers everywhere, to a politically respectable scientific endeavor compatible with nationalistic ideals. Similarly, official discourse within the People’s Republic of China names the desire for ‘energy security’ among their reasons for pursuing such ambitious renewable-energy-related goals. In their 12th five year plan (2011-2015), China has announced that, it aims to generate 11.4% of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources, cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 17%, and will expend 2.2% of their GDP on Research and Development across all sectors (Xinhua). With a GDP growth rate of 10.3% in 2010, China topped 6 trillion US dollars (Asia News), making their commitment to R & D no small pledge. But, is this politically-trendy stance just window dressing for foreign audiences, and if China is financially committed to developing and producing clean energy, do they have the political framework in place to ensure that the development of clean energy itself will not hurt the environment?
With such a commitment on the table (not to mention the Chinese predilection for ‘borrowing’ foreign technology) , it becomes easy to doubt the New York Times’ 2009 prediction that China would need a minimum of 10 years to develop technology which would allow them to dominate the clean tech sector (NYT OpEd). Contrast the recent failure of Solyndra, which benefitted from $535 million of financial support by the US government, to the meteoric rise of Suntech, a Chinese company which, since debuting on the New York Stock Exchange in 2005, has become the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. However, Suntech’s rise has not taken place without even stronger financial support from the Chinese government, allowing Suntech to charge some of the lowest prices in the industry. In fact, similar to action taken by Japanese automakers in the 1980s, in anticipation of ‘dumping’ charges and protectionist measures from the US market, Suntech opened solar panel production facilities in Goodyear, Arizona (NYT Solar). China’s financial commitment has had impressive results in the development and production of several renewable energy technologies, but as these companies become more and more competitive on the international stage, increased scrutiny has revealed inconsistencies in China’s commitment to the environment.Despite improved technology and production efficiency, the rise of China’s clean energy companies has not been want for mud-slinging. In recent years, Chinese solar companies have often come under fire for pollution allegations (Trehugger). Although both the US State department and Xinhua News Network mention ‘commitment to environmental protection’ among China’s major goals, it is widely believed that Chinese solar companies, such as Suntech, take advantage of China’s less-stringent environmental policies and cut corners during production, neglecting to properly dispose of poisonous, silicon-based by-products in order to further cut costs. However, while politicians and businessmen might green-light these get-rich-quick schemes, practices such as these hardly have the support of the Chinese public, and pollution-related protests outside of a Jinko Solar Production plant in Haining forced its shutdown late last month (CNN). Thus, particularly in the solar industry, although China might be an industry-leader in terms of the capacity for renewable-energy production, lack of regulation makes these processes a ‘two steps forward, one step back’ scenario as far as the environment is concerned.
Sources:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/05/c_13762230.htm
http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=16909
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/business/energy-environment/25solar.html
http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/20/pollution-protests-shut-china-solar-plant/
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/opinion/07Usher.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solar_pollution_china.php
There Are Rules Against That Now: China in Africa Today
Issue 2
In the four decades leading up to the First World War, the world witnessed what later came to be known as the “Scramble for Africa.” European countries snatched up gigantic swaths of land and their natural resources across the African continent, with claims stretching from Egypt to South Africa, supposedly governed by rules agreed upon by diplomats at the 1884 Berlin Conference. Despite having a humanitarian façade back home, the atrocities committed by these self-interested nations soon came to light, such as the well-documented death of nearly half the native population in what was then known as the Congo Free State while under Belgian rule. Today, Western countries have found their conscience and now frown upon developed nations going into Africa just to rape the land for fiscal and political profit, as was done in years past.
Unfortunately for China, whose actions in Africa have seen widespread criticism in the past five years, it seems to have joined the game about a century late, because now the rules have changed, and countries with more African skeletons in their closets than they know what to do with are more than eager to raise flags and point fingers at ne’er-do-wells. The Chinese are most often criticized for propping up dictators in Zimbabwe, turning a blind eye to the genocide in Darfur, and generally ignoring any and all environmental standards in an effort to undercut business competitors. Still, the criticism is not coming from everyone in the Western camp; some German media outlets assert that China is engaged in a genuine exchange with her African constituents in which both sides are benefiting.
Chinese involvement in Africa is still considerably less than Western involvement, but, with high-profile clients such as Zimbabwe and the Sudan, Chinese actions have been highly scrutinized. The way China operates in Africa is hardly beyond reproach: Chinese aid packages are often administered with large bribes and Chinese companies often ignore existent environmental protocols. However, China is essentially doing for Africa what Japan did for China when China was trying to kick start their own industrial development. True, the Chinese are acting out of business interest rather than altruism, and have been able to negotiate some great ‘bargains’ since beginning this program, but this is a situation where Western news outlets should “clean their own garden” before pointing fingers Eastward. China may be making a fast Yuan off of Africa, but it’s yet to slaughter their people in the process.
结束
Yellow Peril and the 2010 Elections
Issue 1
Increased fear in many South Africans over perceived Japanese economic “dumping” led Barry Hertzog, South African Prime Minister throughout much of the interwar period, to make a politically risky move during his 1933 bid for reelection. In order to present a united front against this foreign foe, Hertzog formed a coalition government with a former member of the opposition, Jan Smuts. While Hertzog had based much of his campaign rhetoric in the 1929 election on the notion of a “black peril,” Hertzog and Smuts united to win the 1933 election under the banner of a “yellow peril” which threatened domestic industry.
This sort of emotive fear mongering has yet to go out of fashion in the West, and is now rearing its ugly head again in the lead up to the 2010 midterm elections. This time, though, instead of cheap Japanese imports, Democratic and Republican candidates are utilizing the specter of the growing Chinese economy to sway and intimidate voters. Of 29 such ads which were broadcast by candidates for Governor, the Senate, and the House of Representatives by 9 October, perhaps the most offensive and often cited is an ad by Ohio Representative Zack Space, who accused Bob Gibbs, his republican opponent, of supporting free-trade policies. The commercial closes on the iconic image of a Chinese festival dragon while the narrator says, “As they say in China, 谢谢 Mr. Gibbs.”
Whether it is a Democratic candidate claiming that Republicans support tax breaks that reward companies for moving jobs to China, or a Republican candidate blaming Democrats for a federal budget deficit they say forces the U.S. to borrow money from China, both are looking for an easy scapegoat on which they can blame America’s current economic situation. This has not gone unnoticed by the Chinese. Five days after the New York Times ran an article exposing these campaign ads, a similar article appeared on the Xinhua News Network’s (China’s state-run news corporation) website. However, while it is unlikely that these instances of tawdry politics will harm the US’s overall bilateral relations with China, it is a dangerous, irresponsible way for candidates to campaign. Instead of scrounging around the globe for someone to blame our less-than-ideal economic situation on, candidates would be better served reevaluating America’s own domestic policies. Nationalism has its place, but that doesn’t green light China-bashing in lieu of constructive dialogue.
In fact, some economists and analysts, including members of the Cato Institute, believe that the transfer of low-skill industrial jobs to developing countries such as China is to be expected. They believe it is a process which occurs in the majority of wealthy countries as their economies replace low-skill manufacturing jobs with more positions in the service industry. Still, come election time, few voters want to hear that sort of analysis, which may be why candidates have decided to play the blame game instead. While it may seem like a sound political decision, this could prove to be a most dangerous game, allowing our politicians to run around in circles instead of taking our economic situation at face value. Furthermore, demonizing another country in the name of domestic political gains threatens to damage American citizens’ perception of globalization. As a country of immigrants, we can hardly afford to adopt isolationist, hostile foreign policies because our politicians see foreign countries as easy targets. As much as Hertzog and Smuts liked to blame their economic situation on the Japanese, it was actually Hertzog’s own unwillingness to abandon the gold standard in 1931 that hurt South Africa’s economy. Taking a similar tactic in 2010 won’t produce different results.
Additional Youtube links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nx1Uumymqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9NGXfB7PxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9gqUiO1NrY
No comments:
Post a Comment