General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere is how America is making the Third World a better place with Globalism. Congratulations!
America uses 30% of the world's resources, so we need to send more jobs overseas.
So, let's take a look at all the great things we're doing for the poor outside of America by outsourcing our jobs!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/asia/beijing-journal-anger-grows-over-air-pollution-in-china.html
The ceaseless churning of factories and automobile engines in and around Beijing has led to this: hundreds of flights canceled since Sunday because of smog, stores sold out of face masks, and many Chinese complaining on the Internet that officials are failing to level with them about air quality or make any improvements to the environment.
http://www.salon.com/2006/04/10/ewaste/
More than 50 percent of our recycled computers are shipped overseas, where their toxic components are polluting poor communities. Meanwhile, U.S. laws are a mess, and industry and Congress are resisting efforts to stem "the effluent of the affluent."
A parade of trucks piled with worn-out computers and electronic equipment pulls away from container ships docked at the port of Taizhou in the Zhejiang Province of southeastern China. A short distance inland, the trucks dump their loads in what looks like an enormous parking lot. Pools of dark oily liquid seep from under the mounds of junked machinery. The equipment comes mostly from the United States, Europe and Japan.
For years, developed countries have been exporting tons of electronic waste to China for inexpensive, labor-intensive recycling and disposal. Since 2000, its been illegal to import electronic waste into China for this kind of environmentally unsound recycling. But tons of debris are smuggled in with legitimate imports, corruption is common among local officials, and Chinas appetite for scrap is so enormous that the shipments just keep on coming
http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/collaboration/2007/summer/outsourcing-pollution.shtml
Rising U.S. Trade May Increase Carbon Emissions
A rise in global trade has researchers wondering about the potential impact on future climate policy.
A recent Carnegie Mellon study finds that the United States may be reducing its own carbon emissions by importing goods from countries that are creating even more emissions in the production process than the United States would have originally.
Making a desktop computer in China, for example, can generate up to three times the carbon dioxide emissions as making the same desktop computer in the United States.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/how-big-deal-outsourced-pollution
How Big A Deal Is Outsourced Pollution?
It's fairly straightforward to measure how much carbon dioxide a given country is emitting within its own borders. Just count the factories and power plants and cars and so forth and tally up all that pollution. But what about outsourced emissions? After all, the United States and Europe consume a whole bunch of goods manufactured overseas, and those emissions usually get chalked up to developing countries like China. So who bears the responsibility here?
It's a dicey question, though the first step is to get a handle on how much carbon pollution actually gets outsourced. And the answer seems to be: quite a bit. A new study by Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science finds that the United States outsources about 11 percent of its emissions abroad, while Japan outsources nearly 18 percent and European nations outsource anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent of their emissionsmost of it to developing countries. On the flip side, nearly one-quarter of China's emissions, for instance, go into making goods for other countries.
Outsourcing Global Pollution to India - Vandana Shiva
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/19/us_castoffs_resuming_dirty_career/
TURNERS FALLS -- Some townspeople in this 19th-century mill village on the Connecticut River celebrated when workers began tearing down a shuttered coal-fired power plant this year. First, they dismantled the towering boiler. In June, the smokestack that belched hundreds of thousands of tons of heat-trapping gases into the air came down. Last month, workers hauled away the five-story steel skeleton, leaving just a concrete silo as a reminder of this local icon of global warming.
But the demolition is hardly a victory in the battle against manmade climate change.
Virtually every piece of the 2,600-ton plant is being shipped to Guatemala to be rebuilt, girder by girder, to power a textile mill that sells pants, shirts, and sportswear to the United States. It could last, and continue to pollute, for another 50 years.
From 4-ton trucks to 40-ton boilers, US vehicles and equipment are finding a second life in developing countries -- postponing meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by inefficiently using energy or directly emitting carbon dioxide.
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/the-hypocrisy-of-outsourcing-pollution.html
Joseph Kahn and Mark Landler of the New York Times do a great job of reporting on the dirty little secret: the west is getting cleaner air and generating less greenhouse gas because we have outsourced it to China. They follow a major steel plant in Dortmund, where ThyssenKrupp sold it to the Chinese, who came over and dismantled it, and reassembled it in Handan. "They worked day and night," said Erwin Schneider, a spokesman for ThyssenKrupp. "They could never have done it that fast if they were governed by German labor laws."
Now Dortmund, which went through a bit of a recession as it lost 40,000 steelmaking jobs, has a performing arts complex being built out of two old blast furnaces, and the Ruhr is a capital of culture. In Essen, a depleted coal mine has been converted into a museum and performing-arts center. In Bochum, a 105-year-old gas-fired power plant is now used as a concert hall, its vaulted roof providing professional-quality acoustics.
In Handan, citizens "live in a miasma of dust and smoke that environmental authorities acknowledge contains numerous carcinogens....People do not eat outdoors, to avoid having black briquettes flake their rice."Hangang knocks 10 years off people's lives."
The next time we pat ourselves on the back for reducing carbon emissions or complain about China, we should look in the mirror first; on a global scale we haven't reduced anything, we just moved it.
The next time you meet someone who believes in globalism, be sure to share these proud achievements of "free trade" with them!
[img][/img]
think
(11,641 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)these articles say to me is Americans need to cut consumption, the U.S. Government needs to crack down on the outsourcing of jobs and it's a good damn thing Bush is no longer President.
Everything You Need to Know About Insourcing
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/11/everything-you-need-know-about-insourcing
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)is leading the way there.
The poll shows that it's Democrats that you have to still work on as they are the only group (40%-35% in favor) that still supports free trade and the WTO. Republicans (54%-28% against) and teabaggers (even more so 63%-24% against) are already on board your train.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1795/poll-free-trade-agreements-jobs-wages-economic-growth-china-japan-canada
The European far-right is way ahead of you.
Le Pen trumpets protectionism
http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/le-pen-trumpets-protectionism-1.1208658
French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen played to deepening economic fears on Thursday, promising to leave the euro, pursue protectionist policies and accusing incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy of selling out to foreign ratings agencies.
Less than four months before the presidential election, Le Pen told reporters she was the candidate of the nation, pitted against establishment rivals who were wedded to globalisation.
Recent polls forecast centre-right candidate Sarkozy and Socialist Francois Hollande would eliminate Le Pen in the first round of voting on April 22, before a runoff on May 6. She has 15-20 percent share of voting intentions, around 5 points behind Sarkozy and 8 short of Hollande.
They are insincere and conning the French, Le Pen said of her opponents, speaking at the National Front headquarters just outside Paris. I am, and I will be, the only candidate for protectionism and restoring our industrial base. ... France can no longer be blinded by a Europe dominated by Brussels bureaucrats stuck in their ultra-liberal free trade ways ...
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)One has to wonder why you're avoiding that.
pampango
(24,692 posts)If your focus is anti-globalization in general then republicans, teabaggers and the European far-right are with you, you just need to work on Democrats.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If we cease to allow the import of goods made in polluting factories that don't meet American standards, America will reduce its pollution footprint. We will use less resources and pollute the world less.
If your idea is to reduce pollution you must agree. We simply cannot FORCE China to follow "global rules". That ain't ever gonna happen.
dawg
(10,626 posts)I support free trade among similar economies. But there needs to be a framework that guarantees similar standards for labor and environmental protections across free trade zones.
Developing economies should be given easier standards. But they shouldn't be given a free pass. And their standards should increase as the relative strenghts of their economies increase.
Trade should be a race to the top, not a race to the bottom.
unlawflcombatnt
(2,494 posts)That's great news.
More Americans now oppose Anti-American Free Traitors than support them.
And that opposition is growing in both parties and independents.
Thanks for posting that info.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)How is "fixing" all these BAD Free Trade Agreements coming along?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)our pollution for about a year now.
Moreover, while these companies are helping pollute China, they are complaining they can't do that over here because of all our regulations while simultaneously claiming they care about the environment. Well, China is your chance to show you care about the environment. They have poor to no regulations so why don't these companies implement their own regulations if they care about the environment? The truth is we would see the same pollution over here if we gave these companies what they wanted.
China was the test bed for claims about "caring for the environment" and they get an "F".
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)China has been talking about (but not actually doing so) regulating pollution in their country. The corpos are already whining about how it's going to cost more to produce in China.
Which proves one thing: China is getting our jobs partially because they are skimping out on pollution controls.
Sure, they can cut pollution like we did, enforce livable wages and enforce workplace safety laws... but at that point it would make no sense to outsource there.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But the pollution is another interesting matter. The big corporations don't tend to point to China and say hey we're putting the jobs there because of too much regulation in the US. They just hint that without mentioning China specifically.
And we're getting the cheaper products. Cheaper partly because the Chinese have to suffer the pollution (and the illnesses that go with it).
And then getting China to care about its environment is a tough sell - those who govern there, whatever they are doing, it sure doesn't demonstrate well for state planned economies.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)It's cheaper for a company to give itself a good environmental reputation using relatively insignificant environmental initiatives along with a significant investment in PR than it is for a company to actually be environmentally responsible. Keep in mind that companies are in competition with each other. When substantive progress is expensive, and consumers prefer lower prices, the winning company is the one that makes the least substantive change while exaggerating, as much as it can get away with, the extent of the change.
How many consumers are going to do research to determine why brand A is more expensive than brand B? Maybe brand A was produced in an environmentally responsible manner. Maybe the maker of brand A merely spent more money on PR campaigns to make people think that they're environmentally responsible. Maybe the maker of brand A makes a higher profit or pays higher compensation to its management. Maybe the maker of brand A is simply not well managed and the extra money paid by consumers for brand A is simply wasted money.
If specific claims that can be proved to be true or proved to be false were provided in writing at the point of sale, then companies could be sued for fraud when they make false claims. That would be a mechanism that might ensure that the claims are almost always reliable. Alternatively, governments could impose regulations that create minimum environmental, employment and other standards for the making of any product sold in its jurisdiction, regardless of where the product is made.
However, as long as people rely upon a combination of information and disinformation that is dumped into the chaotic "marketplace of ideas", companies will be rewarded for spreading disinformation that is biased in their favor.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)For lending support & profiting from our proud achievements.
txlibdem
(6,183 posts)Maybe we should engage our brains and figure out that CO2 will kill us. It's just a question of when.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)As in all previous threads, what is the solution?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We're fighting back.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Do you have an interest in any other issue on this board? I think it's odd when people specialize in one issue.
Again, besides spamming us with constant whining about the same thing, what is the solution?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)There's no need to discuss anything with you. You're not at all interested in helping Americans.
The solution should be quite obvious to everyone else:
Ban all imports from countries that don't adhere to American emissions standards.
Let them sell their junk to Canada or Europe but America should not be a party to the pollution that China generates.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You cannot even discuss this without attributing a straw man to me.
what is the solution?
Why is this so emotional and important - did you believe you lost a job this way?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'll repeat this: I will never, ever answer anything else from you until you answer the questions I asked you first, repeatedly, a hundred times no less.
You said "Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards so the third world can do better". I challenged you to say that to someone who is out of a job. You never once answered that. Instead you came up with "what is the solution".
I also asked you, what will the poor nations of the world do when America runs out of jobs to give them? What will they do when our economy, the vein they've been feeding off of, collapses?
I asked you first. You will get nothing else out of me but a repeat of this, until you answer that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You are still so emotional over that comment that you can't tell me what you stand for here?
All I know is you can't stand globalization. That's clear. Yet you offer no solutions.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And as long as you refuse to do so I will continue to pursue you about it every time you come into one of my anti-offshoring threads.
But being irresponsible, to you, is a more noble characteristic than being emotional. Gotcha.
Oh and unlawfulcombatant spoke my position on this quite clearly: the solution is tariffs. Or an outright embargo.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)you didn't take the bait
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)The solution is to stop allowing imports that were produced without complying with the environmental and employment standards that domestic manufacturers are required to comply with.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'd be surprised if any country can bring its products in freely. But if there is no legislation to that effect, what's tough about getting it through? Hasn't at least one congressperson ever proposed a bill, with this issue around for ten years?
And would it increase the number of jobs here?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You've already shown you don't care about American jobs leaving the country. Please stay on-topic.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Calm down and quit getting so upset that someone questions your conclusions. I do care about American jobs. That does not mean I have to cry about it and condemn every Chinese person or believe that every Chinese job is at our expense or that there is some zero sum game in the economy and that the US economy is the only one that matters.
That 30% is something I have heard about for a long time. It is a fact. If you are upset by facts and don't want people yapping about them, you're going to have a heart attack.
It may be impossible to stop globalization or that what might at first blush seem to help might hurt in the long run. Or that it is not hurting the US so badly, or is only one factor. People are allowed to disagree with you on that point without being considered un-American.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You said "Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards so the third world can do better". I challenged you to say that to someone who is out of a job. You never once answered that. Instead you came up with "what is the solution".
I also asked you, what will the poor nations of the world do when America runs out of jobs to give them? What will they do when our economy, the vein they've been feeding off of, collapses?
I asked you first. You will get nothing else out of me but a repeat of this, until you answer that.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)we're using MORE of the world's resources and generating more pollution with offshoring, than without.
To avoid being redundant, I posted a MAJOR explanation of this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002172345
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Every. Single. Time. You change the subject away from that.
I'm going to keep posting threads until you've got no choice but to address that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You're just making that up because you have to have an emotional reaction on any question whatsoever regarding outsourcing and globalization. Apparently you can't discuss this rationally. Here I had two replies and I thought someone else might contribute to this discussion. Instead I get more of your ranting personal attacks that I am the most evil anti-American on the planet.
Don't you sympathize with third world poor people at all? Can't they be part of the economy. What about the pollution the Chinese have in order that we can buy cheaper products.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)All you've done is avoid my questions and come back with cowardly responses about "think about everyone else" and "oh did you lose your job to outsourcing" and all that nonsense.
All the while you evade the very questions I've been asking you, over and over again.
unlawflcombatnt
(2,494 posts)"What is the solution?"
TARIFFS are the solution.
Tariffs on imports make them more expensive compared to American-produced goods.
If Tariffs are high enough, it will eliminate imports on the goods being tariffed.
This is the only way to bring jobs back to the US.
And it's best for the environment--substituting cleaner, regulated US production for un-regulated, polluting Chinese production.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Thanks for taking this discussion back on-topic.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Give us a mathematical model for how that will work and cause the jobs to be brought here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)How is the US going to create a pollution free China?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)by
a) Demanding that China adhere to America's high level of pollution controls; or
b) Refusing to import their goods, thereby reducing China's need to produce said goods.
China won't stop their heavy polluting industries, but America can choose not to egg them on.
Oh and we'll also be cutting down on that 30% resource usage you keep yapping about.
Do you get it yet?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Oh, look an attempt at a solution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101425475
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You said "Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards so the third world can do better". I challenged you to say that to someone who is out of a job. You never once answered that. Instead you came up with "what is the solution".
I also asked you, what will the poor nations of the world do when America runs out of jobs to give them? What will they do when our economy, the vein they've been feeding off of, collapses?
I asked you first. You will get nothing else out of me but a repeat of this, until you answer that.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)At the end of the day, the underlying problem is humanity's unsustainable appetite for too much stuff, with the US being far and away the worst offender. That appetite results in cheap exploited labor and more pollution. It's just that we've moved a lot of that out of sight so that we don't have to make that choice.
However, if we did move the factories back here, how long would it take for people to start listening to a Republican politicians saying "Stuff is so expensive at Wal-Mart because of Democrat-enacted pollution laws. When I'm President I'm going to eliminate the EPA." Given that they're already saying basically that (other than the Wal-Mart part), I gather not very long.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,512 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)'Forced to stand for 24 hours, suicide nets, toxin exposure and explosions': Inside the Chinese factories making iPads for Apple
'Working excessive overtime without a single day off during the week'
'Living together in crowded dorms and exposure to dangerous chemicals'
Two explosions in 2011 in China 'due to aluminum dust' killed four workers
Almost 140 injured after using toxin in factory, reports New York Times