China on The Huffington Post

Carl Pope: Slouching Towards Copenhagen

2009-11-24T20:03:33Z

What do we make of the prospects for global action on the climate crisis, given recent events both in the U.S. Congress and in the international conversations leading up to Copenhagen? Something very peculiar is going on. Most of the major players are moving in the right direction -- toward making their economies less dependent on carbon dioxide. China is making massive investments in clean-energy technology, India has recognized that a carbon dependent development trajectory is bad news for a country that has relatively poor fossil-fuel reserves, South Korea has committed to an ambitious goal, Indonesia is practically begging for help solving its deforestation and peat-emission problems, Brazil is at least offering decent numbers, Russia has put forward a modest goal, Japan has upped the ante even though it already has the world's most carbon-efficient economy, and Europe is hanging in there.

Even the United States, justifiably excoriated as an unwilling laggard, is actually decarbonizing its economy at a remarkable rate. Only three years ago, projections were that U.S. emissions of CO2 would increase from 6 billion tons to 7.5 billion tons by 2020. Instead of increasing, they flattened out and then fell. By year's end we will be 8.5 percent below 2005, down to 5.5 billion. And the government estimates that, even with an economic recovery, we'll only get back to 5.9 billion tons if we do nothing more at all. And getting the 20 percent in additional cuts that Congress is groaning about would in fact be almost trivially easy.

Yet, in spite of the fact that the major parties at Copenhagen are actually pretty much in synch, they are unlikely to make any significant breakthroughs. At the Singapore meeting of the world's leaders, it was formally recognized that the most that could come out of Copenhagen was a "political" agreement -- not a binding one -- and that a huge amount of work would be needed to reach a final deal.

Reactions varied. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, conceded that the announcement was a recognition of the realities, but lamented that it also signaled "an abandonment of moral responsibility that a position of leadership on the world stage clearly implies." Joe Romm, from the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, wrote that the announcement makes "the prospects for a successful international deal far more likely -- and at the same time increases the chance for Senate passage of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill..." The Wall Street Journal reported that "International efforts to combat climate change took a significant blow when the leaders of the APEC forum conceded a binding international treaty won't be reached when the UN convenes in Copenhagen..."

Why is this so hard?

Well, U.S. politics doesn't help. The Congressional resistance is driven by two factors -- one is hyper-partisanship and the unwillingness of the Republican congressional leadership to concede that climate change is a real problem, or to give the Obama administration a victory on jump-starting a clean-energy economy, a goal that remains wildly popular (largely for reasons unrelated to climate).

The second is the reality -- thus far successfully covered up by Big Carbon -- that the U.S., because its economy includes so much carbon waste, is beautifully positioned to cut its CO2 emissions very fast in a way that is very good for the overall economy -- but very bad for coal and oil. Senators and representatives from the coal belt and oil patch are afraid of passing a strong climate bill not because it will be hard to achieve ambitious goals, but because it will be easy. And once we kick our addiction to fossils, there will be no turning back from the future.

But the larger problem for Copenhagen is the lack of trust. Poor nations believe that the industrial nations are not prepared to clean up the mess that they created -- and they also fear that we intend to leave them with the bill for the damages that climate change does to their vulnerable economies and societies. Emerging economic powers like China and India suspect that we intend to monopolize clean-energy technology so that we can continue our dominant position in the world economy for another century. The U.S. fears that China will use cheap, high-carbon electricity and weak emission standards to increase its already dominant position in global manufacturing and exports. Brazil and Indonesia are convinced that rich nations want to deny them the right to convert their primary forests into drivers of economic development, so that we can continue to rely on those forests as carbon sinks for our carbon pollution.

So even though all these nations are largely moving in a compatible direction, they don't trust each other enough to commit in ways that would accelerate that progress. This is not uncommon in international negotiations -- and the solution is well known -- identify measures that are small enough that nations will commit even in the absence of deep trust but which, if everyone does what they promise, will be win-wins. After that, go on to the bigger steps. Diplomats understand this confidence-building process fully -- but it has no robust forum in global climate negotiations, and that's a shame.

How do we build that needed trust? Here are just a few opportunities the world could do together:

1. Jointly and collaboratively develop both clean-energy solutions and ecosystem restoration strategies to sequester more carbon in the world's biosphere.

We all know that we need new technologies and a better understanding of how to use the natural world to protect ourselves. Technology sharing is good -- but technology collaboration, where the resources of Brazilian biologists and Indian software pioneers and Korean metallurgists and American materials scientists are all combined, would go even further to solve the climate crisis.

2. Stop methane leaks and make money for natural gas drilling and pipeline companies. The most sophisticated pipeline and gas-drilling companies have reduced their fugitive emissions of natural gas (methane) by more than 80 percent in the past few years -- but other systems are still leaking like the proverbial sieve --wasting money and devastating the climate. Let's help everyone adopt the best practices. After all, it is profitable to do so.

3. Use solar power to light the world's un-electrified villages. About a quarter of humanity -- more than 1.5 billion people -- have no electricity. They light their homes with kerosene. But rooftop solar power is already cheaper than kerosene -- it just needs financing, infrastructure, and supply-chain improvement. Provide those, and the poorest quarter of humanity can go solar. Google talks about wanting "R < C" -- meaning renewable power cheaper than coal. Well, for a quarter of the world, solar is already cheaper than fossil fuel. If we simply deploy at scale, then they can buy it for themselves.

4. Clean up the world's shipping fleet, thereby solving the problem of coastal air pollution and helping to reduce the black carbon that is melting glaciers and the Arctic ice cap. Ships burn the dirtiest fuel on the planet -- bunker fuel. They would actually work much better with cleaner sources, and we ought to mandate an oceanic cleanup.

5. Modernize diesel engines of all kinds to get rid of their soot pollution, another major contributor to public health disasters as well as Arctic and glacial melting. This is conventional clean air technology that will save lives now (and water supplies and climactic stability later).

6. Finally, let's make sure that poor families can at least burn their wood or cow dung cleanly and efficiently in simple stoves, not filthily and wastefully on open fires. Substituting cook stoves, even ones made of mud, for open fires, can dramatically improve health conditions in poor villages all over the world, while also curbing the sooty black carbon that is melting the snows of both Kilimanjaro and the Himalayas.

This is just a partial list -- but if carried out it would have enormous climate benefits while also building trust for the remainder of our clean-energy challenge and making life better for billions of people at a price we can certainly afford.

Alex Wang: Obama In China: What Should Be Done To Build Confidence On US-China Climate Action

2009-11-24T17:25:39Z

The leaders of the world asked for an extension on climate action in Singapore this past weekend. As Jake Schmidt points out, whether this is good or bad depends on how the leaders of the world's top emitters use this extra time beyond Copenhagen. To wit, will nations use the extra time to break through some of the key sticking points on the way to a serious agreement, or is this just more delay?

This means that President Obama has some work to do in China this week. Climate change has already been placed clearly at the top of the agenda for his visit to China, and this is a remarkable development. But important advancements need to be made this week to push forward on building the trust and technical capabilities needed to bring about a meaningful international climate agreement.

One area of clear mutual interest is in the growing of green-tech industries and markets on both sides of the Pacific. The US and China both have a major interest in dealing with the negative impacts of their reliance on coal. Renewables, energy efficiency and carbon capture technologies are areas for mutual cooperation and it's time to get beyond rhetoric to start working through the details. Some in China are concerned that US efforts to promote climate and environmental action in China are an effort to constrain China's economic growth and rise on the world stage. President Obama has already begun to lay the rhetorical response that this is not the case, but concrete agreements with clear win-wins for both economies will help back up the words.

Another issue is concern in the US and elsewhere that China will not be able to implement the commitments it makes on climate change. This has been raised as a barrier to action on US domestic climate legislation and in the international climate negotiations. One issue here is for China to help the US and other countries understand the significant steps already being taken to improve enforcement of climate and environmental targets.

Government official evaluations - These include detailed evaluation systems for government officials that tie promotion and compensation opportunities to achievement of national energy intensity and pollution reduction targets. In the environmental context, such inclusion of environmental targets in Chinese bureaucratic evaluation systems has been shown to lead to greater investment in environmental protection and strengthened enforcement action.

The Top 1000 program - China also implemented a program to set energy intensity targets for China's top-1000 energy using enterprises. This involved negotiated targets and agreements with companies and has driven action over the past few years. If ultimate targets are reached, this would mean CO2 emissions reductions equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions of Poland.

These are measures with "Chinese characteristics" tailored to local circumstances, and the international community needs to know that this and other governance reform is ongoing and active in China.

But how to demonstrate that these measures are effective? How China measures any progress on GHG emissions reductions is a difficult issue fraught with challenges. Indeed, this is a challenge that the US is working on right now . Outside of the power sector, the US does not have experience in accurately measuring GHG emissions either and is currently putting in place a system to do so. This presents an ideal opportunity for US-China collaboration -- to have experts from both nations work to build trust and break through technical barriers. China is making some progress on environmental transparency in general (see here), but much work needs to be done in developing the methodologies to measure GHGs. This will be an essential building block on the way to a strong international climate agreement.

The US and China can start this week to pave the road to a strong agreement next year by putting an agreement in place that includes a strong step forward on green-tech collaboration, while establishing intensive collaboration on the governance structures and techniques for measuring and tracking GHG emissions reductions that would result from climate action.

These would send a strong signal that the announcement over the weekend in Singapore will lead to better, more effective climate action, and was not -- as many are saying -- another failure of the world's top GHG emitters to lead the way on climate change.

This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

China's Middle Class Rises Up In Environmental Protest, Uses Twitter To Organize

2009-11-24T09:34:08Z

More than 1,000 people took to the streets in a district of Guangzhou to protest against the building of a rubbish incinerator near their homes.

The crowd expanded as members sent real-time reports on the protest through Twitter, the micro-blogging website, and posted photographs on the internet.

China Executes 2 People Over Tainted Milk Scandal

2009-11-24T02:49:12Z

BEIJING — China executed a dairy farmer and a milk salesman Tuesday for their roles in the sale of contaminated baby formula – severe punishments that Beijing hopes will assuage public anger, reassure importers and put to rest one of the country's worst food safety crises.

The men were the only people put to death in a scheme to boost profits by lacing milk powder with the industrial chemical melamine; 19 other people were convicted and received lesser sentences. At least six children died after drinking the adulterated formula, and more than 300,000 were sickened.

Rob Kall: China Buys Hummer Brand -- Further Evidence of a Shock Doctrine-Assaulted America?

2009-11-23T17:31:48Z

Naomi Klein described, in her breakthrough book Shock Doctrine, how a nation is attacked, shocked and torn apart, destroying the middle class. It looks like the GM sale of Hummer to a wealthy Chinese investor, probably with the help of Morgan Stanley, is an example of how it's happening in the US.

The deal is sealed. Motortrend reports

The new owners, upon Chinese government approval, will be Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, with 80 percent via an investment entity, and Suolang Duoji, a private entrepreneur who will hold the other 20 percent.

Don't assume that Duoji is a minority partner. The Asia Times reports

Tengzhong is "under the wing of Sichuan Huatong Investment Holding Co, Ltd, 98.5% owned by Suolang Duoji," according to a SinoCast Daily Business Beat report, carried on the Zachs Research website.

One man will basically control Hummer.

GM is selling Hummer for an estimated $150 million, far less than the $500 million it estimated it would get when it declared bankruptcy. Hard to believe that after the tens of billions the US has poured into GM, Hummer is worth so little. But apparently China thinks so.

There's some good news. The manufacturing will stay in the US. Seems the market for Hummer vehicles is primarily in the US. Also, the manufacturer of the military version of the H2 Hummer will continue to build Hummers for the military, at least until 2011.

Reports indicate that the newly owned Hummer company intends to introduce a new H4 model that gets 25 MPG. The Asia Times article compares the Hummer sale to IBM's sale of Thinkpad notebooks to Lenovo, a Chinese company that took the brand to be the number three selling notebook in the world.

We have to wonder if the US had taken Hummer, especially with its dependence on the military version, and turned it into a government-owned operation, would the US benefit? The same goes for the Saturn brand. The US could have easily loaned the money it did to GM with first option to buy those brands, or even to take them, if GM decided to end them. In the case of Saturn, how much does the US lose in terms of thousands of lost jobs? How many technological resources and even patents will the US lose when China virtually steals the Hummer brand for a tiny price?

Right wingers would raise the cry of socialism at the idea of the US salvaging brands and technology. I guess their ideology overcomes concern for American jobs and technologies. Who knows what patents Hummer holds after all? And the deal for the production of US military vehicles has an expiration date. Will China end up making military Hummers? That would surely be a sign of the USA's being in deep trouble.

Perhaps what we're seeing is just more examples of the Shock Doctrine Naomi Klein described, at work. The Hummer purchase was probably aided by Morgan Stanley, one of the last two Investment banking firms, before it and Goldman Sachs became normal banks with Federal Reserve approval. If you want to look to organizations that are profiting from the devastating effects of the Shock Doctrine on the US, look to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The Asia Times reports, "Morgan Stanley is financial adviser to GM during its restructuring, along with Evercare Partners and Blackstone Group, according to a June 1 Bloomberg report."

Will we see more bargain acquisitions of major US companies or brands by Chinese and other non-US firms, brokered by the companies that brought the US economic catastrophe? Considering that President Obama appointed major players from those companies to run the US economy, one would guess that the foxes are not only in, but they are running and operating the hen house. We can expect to see many more US brands acquired by the Chinese, Russians, Brazilians (who now own Budweiser) and other nations.

The question is, since it is so clear to so many that the US was subjected to the brutal assault of the Shock Doctrine, why aren't legislators looking into this and doing something about it? Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation to first identify and then break up companies that are too big to fail. That's a great idea, so long as the broken up companies aren't scarfed up by foreign nationals. The US economy is in shock. Congress is either in shock or in bed with the perpetrators -- same with the White House. Someone better wake up and start responding to the economic disaster and the ongoing sell-off of US assets as an economic terrorist attack. Maybe that's the language that's needed.

My guess is this will not happen from the top down. Obama's White House is inseparable, even indistinguishable from Goldman Sachs. It may happen in Congress. Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich and a few others are asking questions, including getting rid of Goldman Sachs and Fed Reserve man Tim Geithner. The problem is, this is complicated stuff, just like the financial products that brought down the economy. It will take some powerful public education and media coverage to get the public aroused enough to push Congress to do something. Ironically, since Obama has bedded Goldman Sachs, it may well be Glen Beck and Fox News that gets this ball rolling. It would be ironic if Democrats like Chris Dodd, a sweetheart of the financial industry, and Barney Frank, who seems to be way too friendly to banksters, hand the right wing the issues they need to take back Congress and the White House. Stranger things have been known to happen.

Cross-posted from OpEdNews.com

Eric C. Anderson: Beijing's Financial Lessons for Washington

2009-11-23T15:40:04Z

China is signaling an intention to scale back the financial stimulus package Beijing employed in a successful effort to mitigate the effects of the current global recession. On 23 November 2009, the China Banking Regulatory Commission issued a warning that domestic banks must strictly comply with capital adequacy requirements or be subject to restrictions on market access, overseas investment, and business expansion. The China Banking Regulatory Commission declared banks should maintain a "stable and sustainable" lending pace, but went on to warn it would use enhanced inspections to detect potential problems associated with the nation's subsiding surge in loans.

To understand the significance of this seemingly mundane announcement, one has to recognize the central role domestic banks have played in China's stimulus campaign. About the same time Beijing decreed China would engage in this government-led spending program, the Chinese Communist Party also sought to prompt personal and commercial spending by temporarily loosening controls over lending. The result, over the last 10 months Chinese banks have inked agreements providing for almost $1.3 trillion in new loans -- roughly 50% more lending than Beijing had planned for the entirety of 2009.

How was Beijing able to pull this feat off? First, the Chinese banking system was/is in relatively good shape. Having managed to largely resolve the non-performing loan problems that plagued Chinese banks in the late 1990s and first half of this decade, Beijing's financial managers were apparently wise enough to avoid the mortgage-related debacle that nearly shuttered every Western lending window in late 2008. Second, unlike the U.S. banking system that demands independence in good times but depends on taxpayer largess on rainy days, Chinese financial institutions are relatively strictly regulated and expected to actually meet these standards.

A case in point -- capital adequacy requirements. Commonly referred to as the capital adequacy ratio -- capital adequacy requirements dictate how much money/assets a bank must have on hand to cover potential losses, thereby protecting depositors and bolstering confidence in the banking system. In the West banks seek to meet the international capital adequacy ratio of 8%. Suffice it to say, this has been a real challenge for no small number of Western banks over the last 12 months. In China the state-mandated capital adequacy ratio is 11%...and there are rumors it could climb to 13% in the coming months. While the China Banking Regulatory Commission denies these rumors, such a move would certainly serve to help reduce lending. (This would not be an unprecedented action; Beijing ordered the capital adequacy ratio climb from 8 to 10% at the end of 2008.)

With this data firmly in hand, let's return to issue of the moment -- China's apparent decision to start scaling back her stimulus program. Indications of this plan first started to appear on my screen in July 2009, when Chinese banks began to issue fewer loans. It became much more apparent in September and October. Chinese banks halved September's lending rate during the month of October -- trust me; this type of curtailment is not serendipitous. Rather, I would contend Beijing is busily trying to prevent a housing or stock market bubble that could derail China's economy with an impact similar to the turmoil caused by our once-over inflated real estate sector.

All this seems like good common sense, even if it flies in the face of Adam Smith's "invisible hand." The Chinese Communist Party has clearly come to the realization that tight regulation of the domestic financial industry is good for consumers on a micro- and macro-economic scale. Too bad Washington seems unable to reach a similar conclusion. (Watching Senator Dodd's efforts on this front is best likened to skipping stones on a large body of water...strangely satisfying but completely unproductive.)

As the New York Times so brutally reminded us this morning, we have much to learn from Beijing. You see, the Chinese Communist Party wisely crafted a stimulus plan that called for up to 75% of spending be financed by banks and state-owned enterprises -- not the central government. Having allowed our "masters of the universe" to craft securities and derivatives that defied regulation or logic...and thereby nearly cause the collapse of our financial system, Washington had no such option. Instead, we are spending our children's inheritance at a pace that ensures they will never achieve a comparable standard of living.

Think about these figures--pulled right from the New York Times. In 2009 we will spend $202 billion to service the national debt. In 2019 that figure will exceed $700 billion. As the Times so eloquently puts it, this "additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." And my bet is that things are going to get worse.

My morbid fascination with the debate over fixing this nation's health care system caused me to stumble across this worrisome comment from Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL). Speaking on Meet the Press, Durbin declared, "We have to finish [health care] in the Senate or its going to be maybe a long lunch break over Christmas. We've got to really focus, refocus our attention--all of our attention on getting people back to work." I would agree this is an honorable intention. But the fix is likely an emphasis on short term results--trying to drive unemployment down before the 2010 elections--with little thought to long-term consequences. In other words, even more federal stimulus spending created though additional borrowing. I can see the deficit and debt figures climbing even as we speak.

I just wonder how far down this path Congress will get before our primary creditor -- Beijing -- starts reminding us of the need for fiscal responsibility. I suspect the answer is not very far. No, I am beginning to believe we have a lot to learn from China -- particularly on the issues of fiscal responsibility and regulation of the robber barons on Wall Street. The Chinese Communist Party...yes, the Chinese Communist Party...seems to have learned that lesson in less than 30 years of reform and opening. Washington -- more specifically, the American taxpayer -- would be well-served to do likewise.

Leon T. Hadar: Obama, the Teabaggers and Foreign Policy

2009-11-23T13:57:48Z

If you have been following what America's right-wing bloggers and radio talk-show hosts have been saying about President Barack Obama's just-concluded trip to the Asia-Pacific, you would be under the impression that Obama was not treated by officials in that region as the leader of the world's only remaining superpower and the largest and most advanced economy.

The neo and ultra-conservative pundits recalled the good-old-days when former American presidents were supposedly treated with so much respect in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing as they used American economic and military might to compel leaders there to bow to Washington's dictates. But as the right-wingers see it, Obama acted as though he was the leader of just another normal nation and not that of the great power that had won the Cold War not so long ago, projecting a certain level of timidity during his East Asian tour which might explain why he was cold shouldered by the East Asians. And that was such a humiliating experience for proud Americans like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Indeed, according to these and other nutty loud-mouths, Obama had disgraced his country by having taken a deep bow at the waist while meeting Japan's Emperor Akihito. Hey, remember how former US vice president Dick Cheney, greeted the emperor in 2007 with a firm handshake -- but no bow - just the way a real American Man would conduct himself.

American historians were quick to note that Obama was not the first U.S. President to take a bow, following the rules of diplomatic etiquette when meeting with foreign kings, queens, and other heads of state. In fact, former President Richard Nixon - you know, that lefty peacenik --- bowed to Akihito's father in Japan in 1971. And he was the same Japanese emperor who had led his country to war with the U.S. in 1941.

The notion that Obama didn't get any R-E-S-P-E-C-T in the Asia-Pacific during his visit and that his "wow bow" in Tokyo reflected a supposedly spineless diplomacy of kowtowing to China and capitulating to other rising powers in the region over security and trade issues is probably just another example of the kind of hysterical Obama bashing that has engulfed America's flagging political right since last November.

In the right-wing alternate universe Obama is seen as being responsible for the Great Recession, the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now also for the economic and military rise of China, the changing Japanese attitudes towards America and the other challenges facing American power in East Asia. According to the members of the non-reality-based community the suggestion that the China may be less willing to play ball with Obama has nothing to do with America's real weakened economic and military position in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in Wall Street and the War in Iraq. Nope. It all has to do with the perception of American weakness that has been produced by Obama's more conciliatory approach towards China (dubbed by officials in Washington dubbed as "strategic reassurance"), his willingness continue negotiations with the Japanese over the status of U.S. military bases Okinawa and his engagement with the military regime in Myanmar.

But in reality, this kind of more conciliatory approach that have been embraced by Obama in his dealing with China, Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is part of an effort to adjust American position in the Asia-Pacific in response to the very real changing geo-strategic and geo-economic balance of power, and in particular to the shifting balance of power between America and China.

Indeed, the transformation of the post-Cold War unipolar U.S.-dominated international system into a looser multi-polar system was inevitable. From that perspective it is quite possible that historians in the future would contend that the most important event that had taken in place in 2001 was not the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington but what happened exactly two months later - the accession of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) which marked the start of its full integration into the global economy.

That this process of diminishing unipolarism and increasing multipolarism has accelerated under Obama's predecessor has to do with the costly policies at home (irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies) and abroad (military unilateralism and the war in Iraq) that have weakened U.S. status around the world, including in East Asia, and provided the Chinese with even more opportunity to exert their economic and diplomatic influence while America continued sinking into the many military quagmires in the Greater Middle East.

Taking into consideration that what Obama has been trying to begin reversing the trend towards American retreat from Asia that took place under President George W. Bush, one could argue his East Asia tour was certainly a good start. America and China are not about to form a permanent "Group of 2" forum. But during the talks in Beijing that covered currency, climate change, tariffs, Iran and Afghanistan - the American and Chinese leaders took the first steps in a long road in which each side will have to provide strategic reassurances to other. It would a process involving reciprocity under which the Americans will not be anymore in a position to deliver sermons and dictate outcomes to the Chinese.

That could be certainly a humbling experience for the right-wing critics and the neoconservatives who seem to operate under the illusion that America is still Number One and that it can still continue cutting taxes, expanding the deficit, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while defeating terrorism, containing China and Russia, punishing "rogue regimes" and spreading democracy and human rights around the world.

But one of the main reasons why America has less leverage in its dealing with China is fact that the Chinese are playing now the role of America's banker as they continue financing the growing U.S. deficits. And in order to reduce these deficits, Americans will have to cut spending, which should include reductions the same U.S. military commitments abroad that right-wing critics would actually like to see increased.

Indeed, the same teabaggers who in the name of conservative values of limited government and fiscal restraint have been clobbering Obama and the Democrats for expanding the power of the federal government to promote a domestic liberal agenda, including $787 billion economic stimulus and his health-care reform proposals, seemed to have become born-again government interventionists, progressive internationalists and social engineers when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan and to millions of foreigners and other distant societies whose values are alien to most Americans. Many of our irate anti-statist conservatives want to see the same U.S. government whose power they decry when tries to manage the school system in, say, Lebanon, Ohio, managing lots of stuff in, say, Lebanon. Help build the health care system in Afghanistan -- but not in America.

In fact, according to most public opinion polls the majority of American conservatives support increasing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. The same teabaggers who are bashing Obama Administration as "socialistic" and "fascistic" seem to be quite enthusiastic about an Obama doing more national building in Afghanistan, which is bound to help raise the U.S. deficit into the stratosphere and expand the power of the federal government.

As Obama and the Democrats contemplate a new strategy for Afghanistan they should consider integrating the conservative values of fiscal discipline and limited government into their decision-making on this central foreign policy issue. After all, reducing and not expanding U.S. military in Afghanistan (and Iraq, and Korea, and Japan, and...) would help control the spending by the federal government and reduce the ballooning deficit. And that, after all, is exactly what our teabaggers are demanding.

Patrick Takahashi: How Serious Is Our National Debt?

2009-11-23T11:37:35Z

Maybe not as serious as you might think. Let me tell you why, looking at three sources, beginning with the October 24, 2009 issue of The Economist. The issue shows a projected American government debt as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about 100% in 2010. However, Japan will go to 230%!

Interestingly enough, the CIA Factbook has a table of essentially the same international comparison, but for 2008, with Zimbabwe at the top with a debt percentage of 266%. Japan is listed #2 at 172%. However, I couldn't find the USA until I reached #61 at 38%.

So what's going on? Let's do a simple calculation. Our national debt is just over $12 trillion. Our GDP is $14.4 trillion, which results in a figure of 83%. What is the CIA trying to do? Certainly, I would tend to believe The Economist, as confirmed by Wikipedia, which gives the 2008 national debt at about $10 trillion and % of GDP at 70%, with a 2010 estimate of $16.6 trillion and 98.1%.

Thus, yes, the American debt as a percentage of GDP is at around 100%, which is expected to edge up to 101% in 2011, then begin to drop. The expected continued low interest rates can only help a debtor, our government.

Expect, though, a policy uptick, for the health care measure will initially add more debt (just plain old common sense as 35 million or so more people will now need to be covered), but within the decade, when the public option finally kicks in to truly compete, the unacceptable growth rate of our national medical bill should be checked. If you're rich, you'll be hit twice: you'll subsidize much of this, and, so that you can cut in line for service, you will buy supplemental insurance.

Oh, by the way, also from Wikipedia:

The debt limit was most recently raised to $12.104 trillion by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R.1), which was signed into law on February 17, 2009 (P.L. 111-5).[11]

Is there a check and balance system in place or can our national debt keep going up forever? The answer is yes, for Congress needs to approve it, and yes, again, because it always does when asked by the President.

To go on, a look at a historical graph (from zFacts) shows that the all-time national high of 120% was attained at the end of the Second World War, but the current exponential slope looks damning. However, 83% or 100% is still nowhere close to Japan, which appears to be surviving at double our rate. I should mention without going into details that the Gross Domestic Product is about 10% lower than the Gross National Product, and the reason why we don't have exact agreement among sources is because of this discrepancy and the year being cited. Not sure about the CIA, though.

This same graph shows that the Reagan-Bush (Senior) reign showed a doubling of our national debt/GDP percentage, while the Bush (Younger) years initiated the jump when Congress passed the initial bailout package in December of 2008 before Obama came into office. While we're at this, you should know that President Reagan, when he came into office in 1982 faced exactly the same predicament as Obama, for the second energy crisis in 1979 had discombobulated the economy. In 2009 dollars, Reagan got a $1.8 trillion recovery package, double that of Obama.

Finally, what about China? That same Economist article reports that China does own 24% of our foreign debt, but that Japan, a country with a 200% or so debt/GDP percentage, is at 20%. Actually, China recently dropped to 23% and Japan rose to 21%, and in 2007 this was not as bad as you might think, as foreigners only then accounted for about 25% of our national debt. 75% was owned by us. Thus, China's hold on on our economy was actually less than 6%. But foreign ownership of our national debt has doubled, so China's grip is now at 11%.

But let them them bolt and invest in Zimbabwe (remember, their debt/GDP percentage is 266% -- and China has a platinum problem with this country today) instead. Yup, it is appearing that China is contemplating moving money from the U.S. into African, South American and Indonesian resources. It's a risk, but, think about it, would you rather trust the U.S. economy or gain sure access to world resources, which will only jump in prices over the next decade?

So, be mildly concerned about our escalating national debt, but there is no need to anguish. Consider Japan. Also, mostly ignore those editorials that regularly pop up throwing fear at you about China pulling out their money, causing an American depression. They probably will reduce their trust in our economy, but could run into greater difficulty dealing with many of those developing countries that now and then tend to nationalize their industries.

Huang Qi, Chinese Critic Of Earthquake Responses, Jailed For 3 Years

2009-11-23T09:29:03Z

BEIJING — A veteran dissident was sentenced to three years in prison after casting a spotlight on poorly built schools that collapsed and killed thousands of children during China's massive earthquake last year – an apparent government attempt to squelch such information.

Huang Qi, founder of a human rights Web site, had been charged with illegally possessing state secrets, his wife Zeng Li said Monday by telephone. His detention in June 2008 came after several posts on his blog that criticized the government's response to the massive earthquake that struck Sichuan province a month earlier and killed about 90,000 people.

China Slams US Report Warning Of Spying By Beijing

2009-11-23T09:08:30Z

BEIJING — Beijing on Monday criticized a U.S. government report that said Chinese spies are aggressively stealing American secrets, saying the report was "full of prejudice" and warning that it could damage US-China relations.

The annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to lawmakers said last week that American officials believe Chinese spying is "growing in scale, intensity and sophistication" and urges Congress to review the U.S. ability to meet the "rising challenge" of Beijing's espionage.

Dalai Lama: Obama Not Soft On China

2009-11-22T09:53:32Z

NEW DELHI — The Dalai Lama defended President Barack Obama from criticism that he has been too soft on China, saying Sunday that the U.S. leader just has a different approach to dealing with the Asian giant.

Obama made his first trip to China as president last week and has faced criticism that he didn't do enough to press Beijing on Tibet during his meetings with senior Chinese officials.

Tom Friedman Explains Causes Of America's 'Sub-Optimal Solutions' (VIDEO)

2009-11-22T00:22:12Z

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman is worried that America is producing "sub-optimal solutions" to big problems like global warming, an education system in decline and a weak economy.

The author of Hot, Flat, and Crowded appeared on The Charlie Rose Show on Friday night to discuss President Obama's recent trip to Asia, and more specifically China. Friedman lamented the failure of US governance and the "forces of paralysis" that surround President Obama. He is worried that China's streamlined, one-party system will be in a better place to implement solutions to large global problems more quickly than the US.

Holding us back, Friedman argues, is a political system too closely connected with money and well-funded interests. Gerrymandering on the part of politicians makes it so that our leaders practically pick us, not the other way around. Friedman also thinks cable news television distorts the truth and that the internet (at its worst) can be a terrible thing for our nation's politics. He also says American businesses have gone AWOL, and hover over America, participating only when it suits their industry's needs.

Friedman says that better citizens--not politicians--can solve our nation's problems.

WATCH:

China Mine Explosion: 42 dead, 66 trapped

2009-11-21T10:27:12Z

HEGANG, China — Rescuers worked in frigid cold to reach 21 miners trapped underground Sunday as the death toll from a huge gas explosion in a northern Chinese mine jumped to 87 – the deadliest blast to hit the beleaguered industry in nearly two years.

The pre-dawn blast Saturday at the state-run Xinxing mine in Heilongjiang (pronounced HAY-long-jeeahng) province near the border with Russia was the latest to hit China's mining industry – the world's deadliest. Authorities say safety was improving, but hundreds still die in major accidents each year.

China Close To Fielding The World's First Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

2009-11-20T15:50:07Z

China has built up a sophisticated navy in preparation for a potential conflict with Taiwan, a new report from the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) reveals.

The 51-page report is available to download from the Federation of American Scientists website.

Since the late 1990s, Beijing has made a conscious effort to increase the strength of the Chinese navy in the shortest time frame possible, the report argues. These efforts are due, in part, to the strengthening of both Taiwan and Japan's navies.

In particular, US intervention in the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1996 appears to have prompted the Chinese to prepare for similar situations in the future. One section of the report reads:

China's modernization efforts have principally focused on preparing for a Taiwan conflict, with a large portion directed at developing capabilities to deter, delay and if necessary degrade potential U.S. military intervention.

The report goes onto reveal that China is developing the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile - "specifically designed to defeat U.S. carrier strike groups."

In an article from November 17, Bloomberg quoted Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments in Washington, who said that the missile could create a "no go" area for the U.S. Navy.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Read more: Missiles, China, China Navy, US Navy, World News

Inez Moore Tenenbaum: Keeping Our Children Safe this Holiday Season

2009-11-20T13:20:43Z

It's that time of year again. The holidays are fast approaching, and families across America are starting their shopping.

As any parent or grandparent knows, there are few greater rewards than seeing the smile spread across a child's face as they open the perfect present. But we also know how quickly that great joy can devolve into our greatest fear if the appropriate attention isn't paid to safety.

Fortunately, this year, you can shop for your child or grandchild with more confidence than ever before. That's because there are new rules on your side and the side of America's children -- and because we here at the Consumer Product Safety Commission are working tirelessly to protect you. As a result, recalls are being reduced and toys are safer than ever.

We all remember the lead paint problems involving Thomas the Train and Fisher Price recalls. Well, this year, the legal limits for the amount of lead paint on toys dropped to some of lowest limits in the world. For the first time ever, new federal rules also put strict limits on how much total lead can be in toys and all children's products. And toys now have to be independently tested and certified that they meet the new lead paint limits.

The new safety rules also put limits on three phthalates -- chemicals that many parents have been concerned about - from being in toys with mouthable parts. And they turned voluntary United States toy standards to mandatory standards, because we know that stronger standards can save lives.

If you're reading this and wondering exactly what these new rules and regulations mean for you, here's the bottom line: This year, when you walk into a toy store anywhere in America, you can be assured that there are more protections in place for you and your children than ever before.

For proof, just look at the numbers and see that we're headed in the right direction. So far this year, there have been 38 toy recalls -- down from 162 in 2008 and 148 in 2007. There have been 15 recalls involving lead, down from 63 in 2007 and 85 in 2008.

Also, rather than recalling a product once it is in the stream of commerce, CPSC is stopping products at the ports.

Now, I know that even with these new protections, many parents still have concerns about Chinese made products. That's why, as your representative, I've already been to China and Southeast Asia twice in my first four months as Chairman.

I've spoken to government officials and manufacturers about building safety into children's products and about making products that meet the high standards in the United States. I've reminded them that safety and trade are interwoven.

Rest assured that the Chinese are taking toy safety seriously. In fact, the Chinese government closed down numerous toy factories after the wave of U.S. recalls, and both CPSC and the Chinese government are educating toy makers about our new rules.

But even with the extraordinary effort we are making to protect you and your children, it's important to also remember that government can't do it alone. Tragic deaths and injuries still occur each year with riding toys and balloons and batteries and small balls. That's why parents and grandparents need to remain vigilant about toy safety in the home.

Really make sure you purchase toys that are appropriate for the age of your child. You know your child: get them toys they can play with now. And always be sure to keep younger children away from the toys of older siblings.

The CPSC has a number of free services to help you stay vigilant and informed about toy recalls and hazards. So go to CPSC.gov to sign for our e-mail alerts, follow us on Twitter, and check out our new OnSafety blog. And remember: CPSC Stands For Safety, especially the safety of your children.

316,000 Bongs, Disguised As Christmas Ornaments, Seized By Customs Agents In LA

2009-11-20T10:11:31Z

LOS ANGELES — Customs officials say they got a surprise when they found 316,000 glass bongs disguised as Christmas ornaments at the Los Angeles harbor.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Thursday that agents found the highly decorated drug pipes in 860 boxes shipped from China. The cargo, estimated to be worth more than $2.6 million, had been described as glass figures and Christmas ornaments.

U.S. Losing Its Lead In Space, Experts Warn Congress

2009-11-19T22:30:39Z

America's once clear dominance in space is eroding as other nations, including China, Iran and North Korea, step up their activities, a panel of experts told the House subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Thursday.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: The New Arms Race

2009-11-19T15:11:22Z

Hobbled by opposition from the carbon incumbents and their short-sighted allies on Capitol Hill the Obama administration acknowledged this week that it would not return from Copenhagen with any groundbreaking commitment to control green house gases. Meanwhile, Congress is backsliding on the administration's wise commitment to impose a rational price on carbon. Behind the logjam, a treacherous U.S. Chamber of Commerce, always willing to put its obsequious scraping to Big Oil and King Coal ahead of its duty to our country, has battled every effort to accelerate America's transition to a market-based de-carbonized economy.

The Chamber has continued to argue, idiotically, that energy efficiency and independence will somehow put America at a competitive disadvantage with the Chinese. Meanwhile, the Chinese have shrewdly and strategically positioned themselves to steal America's once substantial lead in renewable power. China will soon make us as dependent on Chinese green technology for the next century as we have been on Saudi oil during the last.

Indeed, the Chinese are treating the energy technology competition if it were an arms race. China is spending as much or more on greentech as it does on its military, hundreds of billions of dollars annually on renewable energy and grid infrastructure improvements. Those investments, if not vigorously countered, will effectively erode America's greentech industry leadership and secure China's dominance. China's economic stimulus package, targeted 38% of spending on greentech, as compared to a miserly 12% of the U.S. stimulus program. By 2013, greentech will account for 15 percent of the Chinese GDP. While the United States is projected to roughly triple its wind generation by 2020, China will increase its capacity twelvefold to a wind generating capability more than twice that of America's. And, while the United States is projected to increase its installed solar generation a modest 33% by 2020, China's solar generation is projected to increase 20,000%.

China's investments in solar technology have so powerfully stimulated the growth of a Chinese solar market that Chinese solar panel manufacturers now far outnumber American ones, and they are achieving low-cost production much faster than their American counterparts. Chinese companies are now flooding the American market with cheap Chinese solar panels and devastating the American manufacturing sector that was gearing up to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs for our own ailing economy. Hundreds of U.S. solar manufacturers now see their prospects as grim. BP Solar, Evergreen, and General Electric have already announced the closing of American-based solar panel factories and outsourcing, primarily to China. America's leading solar manufacturer, Applied Materials, has opened the largest non-government solar energy research facility in the world in China. Of today's ten leading solar panel manufacturers, only one is American. The largest solar panel installation in the United States is a 70,000 panel, 14.2 megawatt array on Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The array provides more than 25% of the base's power needs, and saves the Pentagon a million dollars annually in energy costs, but the panels' manufacturer was China's Suntech Power Holdings. Even in the thin film solar market, among the last redoubts of American dominance Chinese businesses are squeezing profit.

Last year, America achieved a milestone, building more wind power generation than all new oil and coal generation combined. We have led the world in wind installations for several years, and the wind industry already accounts for more American jobs than coal mining. At one point the U.S. enjoyed global domination of wind turbine manufacturing with great prospects for job creation. Yet today, of the five leading wind turbine manufacturers, only one is American. While Congress dawdles, China is clobbering us. Shenyang Power Group recently inked a deal to be the exclusive supplier of turbines to the largest wind project in the United States, a 36,000 acre, 600 megawatt development in west Texas. The project will create 2,800 new jobs -- 2,400 in China, but only 400 in the United States. As Lu Jinxiang, chief executive of Shenyang's controlling shareholder noted, "This is just the beginning ... [the United States] is an ideal target." China is likewise poised to take away our lead in batteries and electric cars, and has already pulled far ahead of America in automobile fuel efficiency.

Capitol Hill Republicans will soon recognize that the arms race of the 21st century is already in progress with a totalitarian nation that they not long ago called "Red China." But America will not win with more warheads and better rockets. We can only prevail with robust investment in and support of U.S.-based greentech innovation.

Peter Bosshard: The Dam That Shook the Earth

2009-11-19T12:30:13Z

Scientists agree that dams can trigger earthquakes. A new research paper presents fresh evidence that the devastating earthquake which killed more than 80,000 people in China’s Sichuan Province in May 2008 was triggered by the Zipingpu Dam. This would be the world’s deadliest dam-induced earthquake ever.

Reservoirs can trigger quakes by adding weight to the Earth's crust, and by lubricating the fissures of faults. There are approximately 100 earthquakes which scientists believe have been induced by dams. In the US, the construction of the Hoover Dam led to several hundred small tremors in the 1940s. California’s Oroville Dam, the country’s largest earthen dam, caused a quake measuring 5.7 on the Richter scale in 1975.

The Zipingpu Dam rises 511 feet above the Min River and is located only a few miles from the Longmen Shan fault, where the Tibetan Plateau collides with the Eurasian Plate. Fan Xiao, a courageous official with the Sichuan Geology and Mineral Bureau, warned against the construction of a high dam at this location for many years, but without success. Less than three years after the Zipingpu reservoir was impounded, the 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake hit Sichuan Province on May 12, 2008. Thousands of buildings collapsed, and 88,000 people were reported killed or missing. Sixty-nine dams, including the Zipingpu Dam itself, were badly damaged and at a high risk of failure, but could be salvaged. If they had breached, millions of more people could have been killed.

After the disaster, Fan Xiao pointed out that “Zipingpu has all conditions that provoke reservoir-induced earthquakes,” and said that “we cannot rule out the possibility that building the Zipingpu Dam induced the earthquake because the epicenter is so close to the dam.” Christian Klose of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Lei Xinglin, a geophysicist at the China Earthquake Administration in Beijing, also found correlations between the Zipingpu reservoir and the earthquake. Yet the International Commission on Large Dams rejected their findings. After conducting a study tour of the area, the industry body argued that it was “very unlikely” that the Wenchuan earthquake was triggered by the dam.

The Chinese authorities have never released the exact seismic data of the Wenchuan quake. Based on the figures which are available, Shemin Ge of the University of Colorado, Mian Liu and Gang Luo of the University of Missouri, Ning Lu of the Colorado School of Mines and Jonathan Godt of the US Geological Survey recently created a two-dimensional model to test how the Zipingpu reservoir is impacting the Longmen Shan fault zone. In a paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters, they demonstrate that by May 2008, the reservoir had increased the stress on Yingxiu-Beichuan fault, one of the faults which ruptured during the quake, by 0.01-0.05 MPa (or 0.1-0.5 bar). Such a stress change, the scientists conclude, “could have hastened the rupture of the fault by tens to hundreds of years.” If the quake had hit a hundred years later, it might have found the local population living in earthquake-proof buildings rather than the tofu-like structures of 2008.

Hundreds of high dams are currently being built in earthquake-prone areas such as China’s Southwest, the Himalayas, Iran, Turkey and Central America. Such projects should only go forward if the seismicity around the dam site is continuously monitored, if water levels are not allowed to fluctuate quickly, and if all buildings in the reservoir area are seismically retrofitted. When I met Fan Xiao in his modest office in June, he warned that these consequences of the Wenchuan quake have not yet been drawn. “Dam builders often avoid such measures because of the high cost,” he warned.

Eric Lotke: Obama's Home And The Report Is Out: China Takes Us to School

2009-11-19T11:11:44Z

President Obama is home from China and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission today releases its 2009 report to Congress.

What have we learned? That we need to pay attention because we're getting schooled.

While Obama posed for photos on the Great Wall and talked about a relationship "at an all-time high," China continues to take our lunch money. Hopefully, there were serious back-room negotiations over currency manipulation and illegal subsidies ... because if not, we're in trouble.

Don't take my word for it. The official, bipartisan China commission held hearings, traveled to China and received closed briefings on classified information. They reported back about expansion of the Chinese navy, China's stepped-up espionage and cyber-warfare capabilities, and the world's most sophisticated web filtering and Internet control systems.

But the economy is behind it all. China is quite literally eating our lunch. Since 1980, the U.S. has accumulated a trade deficit with China of nearly $2 trillion. The biggest piece of this trade deficit is in manufactured goods, once the wellspring of American prosperity. And a big piece of that comes from China subsidizing industries and manipulating currency in a way that gives their exports a competitive edge. China then takes our money and lends it back to us, creating both national indebtedness and a destabilizing excess of liquidity that helped fuel our asset bubbles.

This year's report reflects the commission's concern that despite its accomplishments and growing sense of confidence, China may be moving in the wrong direction and that this affects the U.S.-China relationship. China has yet to embrace the challenge first issued in 2005 by the United States that it become a "responsible stakeholder" in world affairs (p. 15).

The report reads like an indictment of Chinese behavior and American compliance. The most glaring problem is the subsidies.

China continues to employ a wide range of subsidies to favored companies and industries within China and to control the value of its currency and provide massive loans from state-owned banks to industries producing over capacity. This approach gives Chinese exporters a substantial price advantage in international markets and disadvantages U.S. companies hoping to export to China. (p. 15).

The report itemizes subsidies in the form of land grants, discounted electricity, and loans from state banks at below market interest rates or "without expectation of repayment" (p. 59). As a whole, the commission concludes that the subsidies and special treatment of Chinese-owned companies "violate China's obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization" (p. 59).

The report goes on to describe export restrictions (p. 62), currency manipulation (p. 68), double-standards on domestic content (p. 52, 64) and China's failure to enforce its laws on forced labor, child labor and environmental standards (p. 67) that were key to gaining international investment and foreign government support. The findings go far to explain why products made in China are so much cheaper than products made in America, and the incentives behind our gargantuan and growing imbalance in trade.

The report also explains how the imbalance goes beyond the trade in goods, and helped bring the whole system down. The commission places responsibility for the global economic meltdown "partially on the United States as the world's biggest spender and borrower and partially on China as the world's biggest saver and lender." But it's not because Chinese are inherently parsimonious or frugal. "China pursues policies that have the effect of increasing Chinese savings, restraining consumption, and keeping the RMB (renminbi) undervalued" (p. 3). The saving was as out of balance as the spending.

The imbalance extends all the way to the banks. China had hundreds of billions of American dollars, and needed something to do with them all, so they lent them back to us. "The policies that China adopted generated a huge flow of liquidity -- or money that can be easily lent to borrowers -- into U.S. markets. This excess liquidity created perverse incentives in the United States that encouraged banks to make risky loans to U.S. households, which in turn grew ever more indebted. High U.S. demand for imports allowed China to save even more, creating a vicious cycle and laying the foundation for the current crisis" (p. 4).

So it collapsed. The unstable structure tumbled down.

In the aftermath, the U.S. passed its own Recovery Act and led efforts for international collaboration. But what did China do? More of the same. The commission reports that China stimulated its economy by raising rebates to exporters and offering other advantages to see manufacturers through the downturn (p. 40). In the words of the Commission:

The fact that the government in Beijing is still pursuing an export-led strategy based on a wide variety of subsidies to export industries, including an RMB that remains substantially undervalued, is a cause for concern. If China continues to pursue huge trade and investment surpluses and to accumulate vast financial claims, it will hinder the necessary global economic adjustment, create excess manufacturing capacity, and lay the groundwork for the next crisis." (p. 2)

We don't need to watch it fall apart all over again. Cheap Chinese exports to distressed U.S. consumers are not the answer. The report advances 42 specific recommendations, from responding to currency manipulation to increasing our defenses against cyber-espionage. A crucial minimum is aggressive use of World Trade Organization trade remedies. We've started moving in that direction with cases on tires and steel pipes. The Commission recommends that the U.S. government preserve and use existing remedy laws "to respond to China's unfair or predatory trade activities" (p. 12).

Obviously, nobody wants to start a trade war and nobody thinks we can unwind the global economy. This isn't about protectionism or going backwards. It's about building a global economy with agreed-upon rules of free trade that every country follows. From rugby to poker, rules make systems work. Following rules is what China agreed to when it entered the G-20 and was granted permanent normal trade relations with the U.S.

There's a purely domestic angle, too. Between the lines of criticism is a hidden story, implicit advice about fixing our own economy. Parts were illegal and parts were unfair, but China's success shows how deliberate industrial policy helped it accomplish strategic goals.

Indeed, a summary of China's misdeeds reads almost like a "how-to" list for industrial policy: Subsidize strategic industries, especially energy (p. 57, 65). Enhance innovation by creating "industrial commons," clusters of producers, suppliers and researchers in close proximity who support each other in uncovering problems and discovering solutions (p. 87). Build an infrastructure, especially on transportation, with domestically produced parts (p. 64).

Now the U.S. can't be like China in every regard, and we wouldn't want to be. But we might as well learn some lessons while we're in school. As the Commission observes, "A widely shared goal in China is to make the country rich and powerful and to regain the nation's former status as a great power that controls its own fate" (p. 56).

That's their goal and they made a plan to achieve it. What's our goal? How are we going to get there?

------------
This piece originally appeared at the Campaign for America's Future.

Leo W. Gerard: Gone with the Wind: Blowing U.S. Tax Dollars Off Shore

2009-11-19T10:49:52Z

It turns out a Texas windmill farm developer's request last month for nearly half a billion dollars in stimulus funds to create 2,000 jobs in China doesn't rank first on the audacity scale.

Shockingly for American taxpayers, and sadly for the staggering 10.2 percent of Americans who are unemployed, it doesn't even rank second.

That's because Washington already has doled out hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to foreign renewable energy firms. Of the $1.05 billion in clean energy grants awarded by D.C., $849 million -- 84 percent -- went to foreign wind companies, according to an analysis by Russ Choma of the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He wrote:

"The cash grants were given for the installation of 1,763 megawatts of capacity - 1,566 installed by foreign companies. Using the Renewable Energy Policy Project's own numbers, as many as 4,500 manufacturing jobs may have been created overseas."

A strong, broad Buy American clause in the stimulus bill could have prevented the off-shoring of U.S. tax dollars intended to create jobs for unemployed Americans. My union, the United Steelworkers, and the AFL-CIO pushed hard for that language, and polls showed 86 percent of Americans supported it. Republicans and lobbyists for multi-national corporations that wanted to spend U.S. tax money overseas opposed Buy American provisions.

Congress adopted weak, limited Buy American language. Now D.C. exports stimulus dollars to create jobs in foreign countries.

Some of the foreign wind firms that got stimulus funds have American subsidiaries. But most of them shipped major components for wind farms to the U.S. That means American stimulus dollars employed foreign workers. One Spanish company, Iberdrola S.A., got $545 million from U.S. taxpayers.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, denounced the request to use U.S. tax dollars to create jobs in China and demanded the Obama administration deny funding. But it's too late for the $849 million in stimulus dollars already given away to foreign wind companies. American tax dollars, meant to create jobs and nurture a green energy industry in the U.S., are gone with the wind.

Lavishing stimulus funds on foreign businesses is tragic for another reason: Those overseas companies are competitors to fledgling U.S. firms that were supposed to get the money. President Obama has said he wants the U.S. to be "the world's leading exporter of renewable energy." That's not going to happen if the U.S. pays European and Chinese manufacturers to import wind turbines.

Congress set aside at least $3 billion in the stimulus bill for renewable energy projects. That investment would have two benefits. Growth in renewable energy - from sources such as windmills and solar cells - could reduce dangerous pollution from burning fossil fuels. In addition, the Blue Green Alliance estimated in its report, "Building the Clean Energy Assembly Line," that U.S. manufacturers could create 850,000 jobs if Congress adopted a national standard requiring 25 percent of electricity to be generated with renewable sources by 2025.

The key, obviously, is that the wind turbines and solar cells constructed to meet that standard couldn't be imported for the jobs to be created in the U.S. The U.S. industry, however, needs the kind of help foreign governments give their clean energy manufacturers. The Blue Green Alliance report notes:

"Without new policies promoting domestic manufacturing, an unnecessarily large portion of these jobs will remain overseas."

Keith Bradsher of the New York Times in a July 13 story described China's policy to protect and promote its renewable energy industries: "China is shielding its clean energy sector while it grows to a point where it can take on the world." That includes, Bradsher recounted, a competition last spring where China disqualified all foreign bidders on technicalities for 25 contracts to supply wind turbines. Beijing then awarded the contracts to seven Chinese companies, including some that had never built a turbine.

There's no reason except a desire to shoot itself in the foot for the U.S. not to protect and promote its own renewable energy industries. "The Building the Clean Energy Assembly Line" report provides recommendations for Congress to cultivate American renewable energy industries, including long-term investment tax credits, adopting a national standard requiring a minimum percentage of electricity be generated through renewable energy, passing cap and trade legislation, and providing low-interest financing.

After the Texas windmill incident, I wrote Sen. Schumer asking for bold action to support U.S. clean energy manufacturing. In the letter copied to all members of Congress, I told him we must expand and accelerate the availability of incentives for manufacturing wind turbines and other clean energy technologies - here, in the U.S. One important way to do that is for Congress to extend to the manufacture of components like turbines the funding incentives that are now provided for production of clean energy.

Clearly, another method would be to Buy American. When constructing a wind farm in Texas, why would taxpayers give their money to support importing the turbines from China or Spain when there are perfectly good turbine manufacturers here in the U.S.?

The Texas windmill farm developer announced this week that its Chinese partner plans to construct a $50 million turbine factory in the U.S., according to a story in the New York Times. But that facility won't supply the turbines for the project that the partnership wants $436 million in stimulus funds to support. Those would come from China. So, in the end, it still means nearly half a billion in U.S. tax dollars would create 2,000 turbine-building jobs in China.

When China passed its $600 billion economic stimulus bill this summer, it adopted "Buy China" provisions. Obviously, as far as wind turbines were concerned, it was implementing a "Buy China" policy before that.

Is the U.S. going to continue thwarting itself and tilting at windmills or is it going to adopt and enforce a robust Buy American policy and build some?

Xue Feng, American Geologist, Held And Mistreated By China

2009-11-19T09:37:01Z

BEIJING — Sometime into his long detention by China's feared state security agents, American geologist Xue Feng had something to show U.S. consular officials on their monthly visit. He rolled up his sleeve, revealing the burns where his interrogators pressed lit cigarettes into his arm.

Xue also had something to say: He wanted his previously unpublicized detention made public in hopes that the outcry would win his release.

Leon T. Hadar: Will China Win the War on Terrorism?

2009-11-19T09:20:00Z

Lee Kwan Yew, the Founding Father of Singapore and that city-state's first Prime Minister (1959-90) and its current Minister Mentor (a cabinet position he assumed when his son eldest Lee Hsien Loong was selected as Prime Minister in 2004) is one the global village's leading Wise Men; East Asia's Henry Kissinger, if you will. So when Lee talks, a lot of powerful people listen. And when Lee visited Washington recently, officials, lawmakers and pundits wanted to find out what this elder statesman who is friendly with members of the American and Chinese political establishments had to say about the growing challenges to U.S. global supremacy and dramatic rising power of China.

In addition to delivering a major address at an event organized by the US-ASEAN Business Council, Lee also had an opportunity to provide his insights to President Barack Obama during a meeting in the Oval Office. His message to the American audience was unambiguous. It included a warning that America has overcommitted itself in Afghanistan and the rest of the Greater Middle East just as the global and economic power is shifting to the Pacific Rim. But Singapore and other American allies want the U.S. to remain engaged in the Asia-Pacific and counter-balance -- not contain! -- China, the region's leading economic powerhouse.

President Obama was probably keeping Lee's advice in mind during his first trip to the Asia-Pacific region since taking office as he tried to convince his hosts that the U.S. is returning to play an energetic leadership role in the region. Obama should be applauded for enunciating his intentions to re-orient American global priorities towards the Pacific Rim, with the current tour of the region highlighting this change. Washington's commitment to renewed U.S. engagement in Southeast Asia was clearly demonstrated by Obama's participation in the side gathering of the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) members in Singapore. It was the willingness on the part of the new U.S. administration to engage Burma that made it possible for Obama to attend a meeting of the organization that included that military regime as a member.

But during the 10-day tour that included stops in Tokyo (where Obama delivered one of his "major addresses), Singapore (where he attended the in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum or APEC leaders' meeting), in Beijing and in Seoul, the president had an opportunity to meet officials and to address audiences that may have already concluded that the U.S. was losing ground in the region and that China was going to assume its position as an hegemon sooner or later.

Indeed, America has been in the process of retreating from the Asia-Pacific region for most of the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush. It was not a secret that U.S. economic and security partners in the Asia-Pacific region have been expressing their concern that the preoccupation of Washington with the political-military instability in the Greater Middle East has diverted American attention from East Asia and its dramatic economic transformation, starting with the rise of China.

It was understandable that in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration would be investing much of its time and energy in leading the global campaign against terrorism. But the fixation with this problem, which led the U.S. into fighting two long and costly wars and launching numerous diplomatic initiatives in the Greater Middle East, created the impression that global trade and investment, issues that remained central to the emerging economies of the Pacific Rim, have been placed on Washington's policy backburner with high U.S. officials spending more time traveling to Cairo and Jerusalem than to Beijing and Jakarta. And in East Asian countries like in the rest of the world, U.S. unilateral approach helped ignite strong anti-American sentiments.

It was not surprising that the elites and publics in the region felt at times that Washington was giving them the cold shoulder, especially after former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had skipped two of the ASEAN's ministerial meetings and instead ended-up doing more diplomatic shuttling in the Middle East. In fact, even the annual APEC meetings, where investment and trade were supposed to dominate the discussions, proved to be one more occasion for President Bush to press his anti-terrorism campaign.

In a way, the American neglect of the Asia-Pacific region and its policy concerns has not only alienated its friends in the region. It also hurt long term U.S. economic and strategic interests. Just as the Americans were being drawn to more messy military and diplomatic quagmires in the Middle East, the Chinese were launching new "charm offensives" in the Asia-Pacific region, expanding their trade and investment and applying their soft power.

The sentiment that China was ascending while American power was receding, became more pervasive among East Asians in aftermath 9/15, the day in which Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy. That event marked the onset of a devastating financial earthquake in Wall Street that ended-up producing the most destructive global economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's. The crisis and its aftershocks seemed threaten the intellectual assumptions of American geo-economic policies of the 1990's, and in a way, the "irrational exuberance" about the American economy and the entire creed of globalization that was so popular among the Pacific Rim economies -- encouraging the spread of American-style free markets, de-regulating of American and global financial markets, liberalizing global trade, and expecting China and other emerging markets to join and support an American-led geo-economic and geo-strategic system.

Instead, while the tenets of American economic policymaking have been challenged at home and abroad, the Chinese economy has emerged as a winner out of the current crisis which explains why officials and executives in the region seem to find the Chinese economic and political model more suitable for their long-term needs. While Obama's charm offensive in the Asia-Pacific - he declared himself to be the first "Pacific President" -- was certainly welcomed news for U.S. partners in the region, they also recognize that against the backdrop of Great Recession there is very little support in Washington for launching new free trade initiatives. While Obama has been employing free trade rhetoric and calling for expanding U.S. economic ties with China and the other Asia-Pacific nations, he has also been responding to the pressure of the members of a struggling middle class and impoverished blue-collar workers who blame competition from China, India and other emerging markets for their economic woes.

That explains why from the perspective of America's trade partners in Asia, Obama is clearly not a happy free-trader a la President Bill Clinton. Obama was visiting the region at a time when his administration was embracing protectionist measures, stirring up trade disputes with China, and expressing a lack of enthusiasm about the proposed free-trade agreement with South Korea that is still languishing in Congress. Most recently, invoking a section of the Trade Enforcement Act meant to permit US industry to adapt to competition from China, Obama raised tariffs on imported Chinese tires for three years: by 35 per cent in the first year, 30 per cent in the second and 25 per cent in the third. While the move was not expected to lead to a major Sino-American trade war, it did reflect the growing power of the more protectionist forces in Washington who are bound to pressure the president to punish China and other economic partners for other alleged trade violations.

But as Singapore's Lee sees it, embracing a tougher approach towards China and other U.S. trade partners could help bring to a halt the momentum towards global trade liberalization that, in any case, has been slowing down in recent years as economic nationalism was rising in other parts of the world. That could threaten to create an environment that would not be conducive for a successful conclusion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations. Moreover, threatened with economic sanctions, China and other East Asian economies may be less inclined to continue financing growing US deficits. This could put a downward pressure on the US dollar and encourage China to flex some of its might as a growing economic power and call for an overhaul of the global monetary system by boosting the use of an alternative to the greenback.

Indeed, coupled with other indications of eroding US global economic and military power, a more protectionist America would make it even more likely that the economies of East Asia could move in the direction of forming a regional economic community dominated by China. If anything, Obama's trip to the region has demonstrated that Washington's ability to counter-balance China in the Asia-Pacific is not going to be an easy task.

Read more: Lee Kwan Yew, Terrorism, China, World News

Jesse Jenkins: Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant -- New Report on Competitiveness in Clean Tech

2009-11-18T16:46:26Z

"Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant: Asian Nations Set to Dominate Clean Energy Race by Out-Investing the United States," a major new report released today by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, is the first to comprehensively benchmark the competitiveness positions of the United States and key Asian challengers - China, Japan and South Korea - in the global clean energy race.

The new report examines the competitive position of each nation in core clean energy technologies, including solar, wind, and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, advanced vehicles and batteries, and high-speed rail, as well as the government strategies each nation hopes will strengthen their position in the competitive global clean technology sector.

To view the full report, click here (pdf).
An abridged, summary version can be found here (pdf).

Core findings of "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" include:

Asia's rising "clean technology tigers" - China, Japan, and South Korea - have already passed the United States in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies, and over the next five years, the government's of these nations will out-invest the United States three-to-one in these sectors. This public investment gap will allow these Asian nations to attract a significant share of private sector investments in clean energy technology, estimated to total in the trillions of dollars over the next decade. While some U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint ventures overseas, the jobs, tax revenues, and other benefits of clean tech growth will overwhelmingly accrue to Asia's clean tech tigers.

Large, direct and sustained public investments will solidify the competitive advantage of China, Japan, and South Korea. Government investments in research and development, clean energy manufacturing capacity, the deployment of clean energy technologies, and the establishment of enabling infrastructure, will allow these Asian nations to capture economies of scale, learning-by-doing, and innovation advantages before the United States, where public investments are smaller, less direct, and less targeted.

Should the investment gap persist, the United States will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys. Current U.S. energy and climate policies focus on stimulating domestic demand primarily through indirect demand-side incentives and regulations. Should these policies succeed in creating demand without providing robust support for U.S. clean energy technology manufacturing and innovation, the United States will rely on foreign-manufactured clean technology products. This could jeopardize America's economic recovery and its long-term competitiveness while making it even more difficult to reduce the U.S. trade deficit.

Proposed U.S. climate and energy legislation, as currently formulated, is not yet sufficient to close the clean tech investment gap. In contrast to more direct investments by Asia's clean tech tigers, current U.S. policies rely overwhelmingly on modest market incentives that are viewed by the private sector as more indirect, create more risks for private market investors, and do less to overcome the many barriers to clean energy adoption. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the U.S. House of Representative in June 2009, includes too few proactive policy initiatives and allocates relatively little funding to support research and development, commercialization and production of clean energy technologies within the United States. Including investments in clean energy R&D, demonstration, manufacturing and deployment in both U.S. economic recovery packages and the House-passed climate and energy bill, the United States is poised to invest $172 billion over the next five years, which compares to investments of $397 billion in China alone, a more than four-to-one ratio on a per-GDP basis.

If the United States hopes to compete for new clean energy industries it must close the widening gap between government investments in the United States and Asia's clean tech tigers and provide more robust support for U.S. clean tech research and innovation, manufacturing, and domestic market demand. Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete China, Japan, and South Korea. To regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure.

See also: "Asia Beats U.S. 3-1: Major New Report on US vs. Asian Competitiveness in Clean Energy Technology"

Media coverage of "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant"

Financial Times: "Asia set to overtake US in green technology"

Wall Street Journal, Environmental Capital: "Flying Tigers: More Reasons to Worry About Asia's Clean-Tech Push"

Stanford Review: "Winning the Clean Energy Race: A New Strategy for American Leadership"

SolveClimate.com: "Made in America by China: New Turbine Factory Offers Glimpse into the Future"

Matt Browner Hamlin: An Open Letter to My Favorite President Ever: You Can Do Better.

2009-11-18T15:11:06Z

My friend Josh Schrei wrote what I think is a critically important and relevant open letter to President Obama in response to his trip to China. Josh is a full time
marketing director and a part time writer, activist, critical thinker,
and student of Indo-Tibetan history and philosophy. His work focuses on
the dissection of all-too-common memes in China-Tibet propaganda and
American political and religious thought. Here is Josh's post, which was originally written at The SchreiWire and reprinted with his permission.

An Open Letter to My Favorite President Ever with a Pointed Message from a Cartoon Lion: You Can Do Better

By Josh Schrei

Dear President Obama:

In Walt Disney’s 1994 film The Lion King, there is a Kenobi-esque moment in which the deceased head of the pride — Mufasa — appears as an apparition before his reasonably accomplished yet somewhat misguided son Simba and utters the words: “My son, you are more than what you have become.”

I write to you today as someone who not only voted for you, but also actively championed you, campaigned for you, and called disgruntled old ladies in rural Pennsylvania for you on election eve. Simply put, I think the world of you. I think you have beaten all the odds, and you have shined every step of the way. I think the world is a better place with you as President, and I think your clearly demonstrated intelligence and leadership as Commander in Chief has not only elevated America’s standing in the world, it has set the bar for nations for years to come.

That said sir, with all due respect… and I recognize that there is indeed a lot of respect due, I write to tell you that you can do better.

Barack, you can do better.

Don’t get me wrong, whatever you do with this Presidency, you’re still a Lion. You’re still — pardon the verbiage — a complete bad-ass.

But oh, Mr. Obama, you can be so much more.

The challenge, in the complex mix of factors you’ve inherited, is to not succumb to the lowest common denominator but to lead, truly lead, with purpose and with clarity of vision. We all face situations in this life where we make a choice to either live fearlessly according to our own truth or to accept what is possible… given the context.

Given the context of our economic crisis, it is understandable that you would make the choices you have on federal spending. Given the context of the egregious attacks of your malcontents, it is understandable that your beloved health care bill would have to be trimmed down to have a chance of passing. Given the context, it is understandable that you would seek a middle ground on climate change legislation. Given the context, it is understandable that you would stay the course of your foreign policy predecessors and make no significant changes in our relations with China.

All of this is perfectly understandable.

Yet those of us who voted you into office demand more of you. We did not vote you in to be perfectly understandable. I hate to invoke the “C” word, but sir, we voted you in because you PROMISED change.

Mr. President, there are two defining and pivotal issues on which you can truly shape the course of history. I speak not of education and health care, for which I will provide a simple equation and assume you know what your GOP counterparts seemingly choose to ignore — in order for us to stay competitive, everyone needs to have both. For free. That this is even a question in the 21st century truly boggles the mind.

Nor do I speak of Afghanistan, in which there are other simple formulas at work. No foreign invader has ever won a war there. And, well, as a rule — the less occupiers you have in a country, the less people get killed. Go figure. The more we give them a reason to fight us, the more they will.

I speak of China and the Environment.

On the Environment, I will be brief. Suffice to say this: your “small government” critics apparently have absolutely no concept of what is coming. Small government, when it comes to the necessity of remolding ourselves to meet to the environmental challenges ahead, will soon be utterly obsolete. Governments will be forced to spend huge dollars to deal with climate change, water shortages, rural depletion and urban overpopulation. What is needed, now, is a massive restructuring and an an equally massive investment in environmental technologies, green jobs, and alternative energy. And I mean massive. This is not about “clean coal”. This is about turning entire industries — like one in Michigan I could mention — into sustainable propositions. If we lag behind on this, the consequences… well sir, the consequences will not be as dramatic as a Roland Emmerich film, but neither will they be as boring.

I recently returned from the Himalayas, where everyone, from humble villagers to guest house owners to tour guides, is visibly shaken from the lack of snow. The aptly named third pole — the 80,000 strong glacial matrix of the Tibetan plateau that is the source of life for literally half of the world’s population — is in total peril. This is scientific fact.

Which brings me to China and Tibet.

The Tibet issue is not one of “human rights.” It is a defining issue of our age. It is about the fundamental right of human beings to live unfettered. Millions upon millions of people died in the second world war so that our global community could unite on a simple principle: everyone has the right to freedom. Freedom to think, express, congregate, build, elect, share, move…. And now — because of our short term ignorance, greed, and hubris, the emerging world superpower is one that honors none of these freedoms. To say that this bodes darkly for humanity is a massive understatement. We have sold the sacrifice of our grandparents down the river. Sold it. And that sir, is an utter abomination. No nation should be allowed China’s violations of freedom. It is utterly unacceptable. And President Obama, you must take them to task for it, while anyone still can.

As a lifelong Tibet supporter, I have endured 15 years of meetings with Senators, Representatives, and Chiefs of Staff and have been told roughly the same thing in every single meeting. We have to engage. We have to give them what they want. We can’t upset them.

Suppose for a minute that on the occasion of my first meeting I had a newborn son. And suppose that child had been raised solely according to the philosophy of those meetings. “We can’t upset him. We can’t offend him. His feelings get hurt when we ask him if he’s cleaned his room….” What would I have now? A 15-year-old, overly-entitled, spoiled rotten, immature, selfish, brutal bully with the keys to the car. Beijing’s leaders deserve none of the leeway we have given them. None of it.

Today, I saw the statement you gave after the meeting you had with China’s Hu Jintao. To call it a statement would be to give you far too much credit. Sir, they invoked your ethnic heritage and your love and study of one of the greatest men in modern history and used it to justify one of the greatest abominations of the modern era. Where is the outrage?

You are more than that tepid diplomacy. You are MORE than the man who stands idly by while lovers of truth and justice are slaughtered. You are meant to be their champion. And if not you, in this rapidly declining world, then who? Who???

If the United States of America does not rise to meet its potential now — if YOU do not rise to meet your potential– in this time, the time when we are MOST challenged, then you of all people know the consequences. You know that we may not in fact get another opportunity.

This briefest of windows is your time. It is your time to not just be remembered as America’s first African-American President who did what he could, given the context. It is your time to become — in the words of my favorite cartoon lion — what you are. What you were born to be. A truly great man.

I am counting on you. We are counting on you.

With love and respect,

Josh Schrei

Read more: Tibet, China, Barack Obama, World News