The Growing Complexity of Dealing with China

Fifty years ago the United States would send government officials or business executives to small third world countries with a checkbook. Whenever such a checkbook was opened, such countries listened. At least for a while.

Now it's China that seems more active about using a checkbook to build relationships. In Africa, the Chinese have been buying up resources; one might argue that this is a new kind of imperialism, 21st Century style. Actually, other arguments can be made but the real point here is that the world is growing more complex and China is now very much part of that complexity.

China is often criticized for its human rights record—and rightfully so—but things are no longer as black as white as they were even fifteen years ago. I've been writing about China lately because a number of key issues cannot be dealt with unless China is part of the picture. Dealing with problems like global warming, fossil fuel depletion, the environment, the economy and American job losses are not going to happen without cooperation with China. Of course American companies who have their products made in China are also part of the picture. As an example, Reuters reports that GM saw its sales improve last year:

GM sold a record 1.83 million autos in China last year, the company said in a statement Monday. The auto maker expects to top that this year, though it sees slowing growth. Kevin Wale, president and managing director of GM China Group, "The industry outlook is strong and we expect more growth, albeit on a somewhat slower pace."

Whether Americans like it or not, we are tied to the economic performance of China. If that sounds vaguely familiar, it's because we're also economically tied to the performance of oil producers in the Middle East. With apologies to Laurel & Hardy, "It's a nice pickle we've gotten ourselves in."

Free trade is great if you're on the receiving end of profits but it's not so great if it means losing middle class jobs to cheap labor. Right now, China and the U.S. are increasingly two-tiered societies with a small wealthy class on one side and everybody else on the other. The wealthy of the current generation are too often not interested in the consequences of their behavior . When mostly Republican commentators in The Wall Street Journal praise the Chinese, they're not praising Chinese workers, they're praising Chinese business owners who share their own values.

Like the U.S., however, the Chinese have different factions with different ideas about the future. Obviously an authoritarian Chinese government has low tolerance for different views. But in spite of recent prison sentences, Chinese wanting democratic reform will continue to find ways to make their views known.

Keeping in mind that the Chinese can sometimes change direction on a massive scale—Deng's pro-capitalism moves is one example—the Chinese are slowly moving in fits and starts towards a more open form of journalism. There are certainly steps backward but we're getting news out of China that was unthinkable twenty years ago. We're hearing about coal mine disasters, earthquakes and protests and we're also hearing about Chinese foreign policy moves, new business ventures and sometimes detailed government policies.

Americans themselves need to be more nuanced when they read or comment about news from China. One of today's stories out of China is about a diesel spill; here's the story from a Chinese news site:

A diesel spill from a ruptured pipeline in northwestern China has seriously contaminated two rivers that finally flow into the Yellow River, the country's second longest waterway, a local official said Monday.

The Chishui and Weihe rivers were seriously contaminated after some 150 cubic meters of diesel leaked early Wednesday from a ruptured pipeline belonging to the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the country's top oil producer, Li Xiaolian, vice director with the Shaanxi Provincial Environment Protection Administration, said at a press conference.

However, contamination to the Yellow River remained under control and its water quality was still within the state standard, he said.

By the time the reader goes to the link, there may be updates but the point here is that earlier in the day the news, accurate or not, is that the spill had not reached the Yellow River. Later in the day, a website called Clean Skies was quick to note an emergency water decree downriver:

The warning contradicts earlier reports from the pipeline's owner, China National Petroleum Corp., that the contaminated water was contained after workers dug diversion channels and used floating dams and solidifying agents to stop the spill.

It's not a bad article though I wish they had given their sources. It gives the impression that China National Petroleum Corp. was trying to minimize the consequences of the spill. It may very well be the case. I note that the spill occurred on Wednesday and it's now five days later. What was that delay about?

But the Chinese in general were not hiding the story. The story can now be found in various places and the details suggests either Chinese government officials or government officials are talking to the media. Here's a BBC story with more details:

Pollution from a broken oil pipeline in northern China has now reached one of the country's major water sources - the Yellow River, state media say.

(snip)

The official Xinhua news agency said: "At present, cities along the river in Henan province have sufficient water resources."

About 150,000 litres of diesel poured into the Wei river in Shaanxi province after a construction accident on Wednesday, state media reported.

It's possible company officials and local officials initially attempted to downplay what happened. I've talked earlier about corruption being a collusion between company officials and local government officials. On the other hand, there was an attempt to control the problem with floating dams, etc. What might then have happened is that the national government became aware of what was happening and the story hit the news agencies.

But the diesel spill is actually only a small part of a much bigger story: the Yellow River has for years been an environmental disaster story of international proportions. It is heavily used and heavily polluted. For some months a year it does not even reach the sea. Wait. This is our story too. The Mississippi and the delta it pours into has become increasingly polluted. It is the story of the Rhine. It is the story of the Nile. It is the story of the Ganges.

It used to take weeks, months, even years to get news out of China. I suppose we can criticize it if it takes more than a few hours for a story to hit the internet. I have no doubt government officials hold off on some stories. I have no doubt it takes time to do an English translation. I have no doubt that those translations sometimes have to get official clearance. But news is coming out of China. And it's often our news, even if, in a country of 1.3 billion people, it's sometimes on a larger scale.

Senator Boxer Takes on Environmental Issues

In poll after poll, most Americans care about protecting the environment. One of the ironies is that a large percentage of Republican voters care about the environment as well. But Republican politicians in Washington see things differently, particularly when it concerns what to do after receiving their campaign contributions (of course, some Democrats are no better).

Things need to change.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will soon be heading a committee on the environment in January; David Whitney of the McClatchy Washington Bureau has the story:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, the liberal California Democrat who'll head the leading Senate committee on the environment next year, declared Tuesday that "the days of rollbacks" on environmental protection are over.

"The way you stop these rollbacks is to shine a light on them," said Boxer, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who pledged that oversight hearings on controversial topics will be the staple of her tenure as committee head.

Boxer said her first act would be to convene a series of hearings on global warming and climate change, as early as January.

That's an issue that's been forbidden by the current chairman of the panel, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who discounts science suggesting that gases from fossil fuel consumption are warming the Earth like a greenhouse and changing its climate.

"There is going to be a sea change on the committee," Boxer said of the polar shift in committee leadership.

I hope Senator Boxer does well. In recent years, America has been living off the environment the way rich kids sometimes run through a fortune. It's time for our country to begin rebuilding our national wealth instead of letting special interests make a quick buck at the expense of our future.

It's also important that we be honest about what we're doing. I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950s before serious air pollution laws went into effect. I can remember the particularly bad days, usually in the late summer or early fall, when the smog actually stung the eyes.

Around Los Angeles, many things were done to cut down on smog. Some methods were straightforward and honest. Some were not so honest but were eventually addressed. Some methods fell in a gray area, though it was understandable at the time. The heaviest polluters around the greater Los Angeles area are cars but beyond smog control devices they weren't about to be touched.

What happened is that a number of heavy industries that happened to be the worst polluters were essentially forced to move out of California. At first, they moved to other parts of the country. But that simply shifted the pollution elsewhere as far as tightening environmental laws at the national level were concerned. Eventually, instead of developing the technology to deal with the pollution, a number of heavy industries started being shipped, more or less, overseas. Aside from the ethical issue of dumping our pollution on others, the irony is that we're discovering that the pollution from industries doing work for us is now crossing oceans—affecting Americans once again. Of course, CO2 emissions are also entering the atmosphere in ways that apparently are affecting the entire world.

For a long time, America has been exporting its pollution, along with jobs. We need to change that. We need to create jobs to clean up the pollution and we need to start talking to other countries about cleaning up the pollution that comes back our way. And we need to find cleaner ways to do all kinds of business. If we value something, it creates demand, it creates jobs. If we value a clean environment, it will benefit us in the long run in more ways than one. We're not exactly a leader in environmental technology but we ought to be. Big companies sometimes do ads talking about the need to change the way we think. I agree and it applies to all of us, including companies that have been putting off changes they know they need to make.

Do Oil Companies Agree with Rep. Barton?

I recently wrote a post on the $100 million campaign the oil companies are launching to improve their image. Is it possible for the oil companies to improve their image without dealing with pollution and Global Warming? I doubt it. There are plenty of signs that the American people have had enough and it's not just about the price of gasoline (though there are a few holdouts, most Democrats in Congress get it).

If the oil companies want to improve their image, they need to explain themselves if they still agree with Texas repesentative Joe Barton who calls Global Warming science nonsense; here's the story from Think Progress:

For six years, Congress has done nothing to address the climate crisis, thanks in no small part to the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, “Smokey” Joe Barton (R-TX). The 110th Congress will have new leadership, but Barton has pledged to continue fighting against legislation intended to address the problem.

(snip)

Barton says his action is justified because global warming science is “pretty weak stuff.” Barton added, “But for us to try to step in and say we have got to do all these global things to prevent the Earth from getting any warmer in my opinion is absolute nonsense. It’s not going to happen.”

For a little more background on Barton, here's this from SourceWatch:

Barton, a former consultant for Atlantic Richfied Co., serves as the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He was the primary House author of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. A number of his former staffers are now lobbyists for the energy industry. The Washington Post reported that, "In his quest for the chairmanship... A network of former Barton staff members-turned-lobbyists-including Jeffery M. MacKinnon (clients: Reliant Energy, Philip Morris, MCI and at least 36 others), Stephen Sayle (American Chemical Council, AT&T and 19 others) and Stephen Waguespack (Duke Energy, Ford Motor Co. and eight others)-worked the crucial corporate and trade association community on Barton's behalf." [Washington Post, 4/14/05]

"Since 1997, oil, gas, electricity, nuclear, coal and chemical companies have contributed $1.84 million to Barton, more than to any other House member." [Washington Post, 4/14/05]

There are Republican conservatives and Republican ultraconservatives (sometimes we just call them right wingers). When it comes to energy, the environment and Global Warming, Barton is the kind of ultraconservative who subscribes to the Republican blowhard style of making his case: if he says something loudly and repeatedly, it must be so even if any evidence he offers is largely worthless. A blowhard can be a blowhard based on principles, whatever they may be, or he can be motivated by his connections to those with a vested interest in his position. Readers can make their own judgment.

But let's go back to the oil companies. What's it to be? A $100 million campaign to continue business as usual while painting a pretty picture? Or a $100 million campaign with some reality to it? Democrats are committed to jobs, good business and a strong economic future (though a few Democrats with vested interests will require close monitoring). No matter what policies come out of Washington, the oil companies will continue to produce oil and they will continue to make money. Will the oil companies join together in protecting the environment and limiting CO2 emissions and cooperating on alternative energy or will they continue their foot-dragging on these issues? The times are changing. It may be time for the oil companies to part company with people like Rep. Joe Barton.