If not, that forecast almost alone could push us past the "magic" 450ppm upper limit...

Does anyone know what assumptions Stern is using?

I actually (obscurely) posted Stern's comments on Gristmill yesterday... I find that projection by Stern about 25-year-China = 20th-Century-USA+Europe deeply unnerving...  

To make matter worse, China's development in general came very late in the game, starting to really boom just a few decades ago.  It's developed so fast that it hasn't had time to regulate the growth with concerns for the environment and humanitarian needs the same way the US, EU, and other industrialized countries have.

And not only are they responsible for their own production, but also the production for many other industrialized countries.  The companies that couldn't survive the environmental and labor regulations of the industrialized world, or simply found it more profitable to ignore those regulations, all took up shop in China once the government lifted restrictions and allowed foreign investment and free trade.

Add to that China's extremely corrupt one-party government, restrictions on protests and independent media, and the fact that the general public is not allowed to take any type of legal or other action to enforce any regulations (what few there are), and it ends up being a recipe for disaster.

Having so much pollution bein' dumped into the country in such a short timespan has begun to raise the eyebrows of some public officials, especially as the health care, tourism, and other sectors have begun to suffer because of it.  But by and large, as long as they higher-ups can continue to line their personal pockets, change may be slow in coming.

The future is hard to predict, so we just haveta hope that China's socialist government will realize what truly is best for the population as a whole (instead of a greedy few) and institute new environmental and humanitarian regulations that they will actually enforce.

   So far, I have been mostly (though not always disappointed).

   Americans are so funny, on the one hand, they criticize China as a "one party socialist state", on the other, they complain because China has opened up to "market forces".  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

   China does have environmental regulations, some good, some bad, and certainly has enforcement problems (any Americans who think this is true only in China can visit the Charles River in eco-friendly Boston and drink deeply (have your will in order), or swallow SF Bay water (not usually a good idea, notice the signs about restricting fish intake because they contain poisons) or enjoy the scenic Chesapeake Bay...

    Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that Americans have a curious double standard.  It's as if everyone has two pairs of glasses, pink ones for viewing the American environment, gray ones for view the Chinese environment.  

    A few points.  The tourism sector in China is booming, not sure what the basis that it has begun to suffer refers to... (wishful thinking??).

    There are many regulations, and the general public does take action (with, as in the rest of the world, mixed success).  The stories are out there, you have to read them.  Is the Chinese legal system fully developed?  Nope, it is changing and trying to improve, again the information is out there. (Is the American?)  Is the Chinese system different from the American, yes!  

    Do you want to help or merely sit and be grumpy?  Helping might include trying to get US to companies to stop violating Chinese environmental laws (a number were cited recently for doing so), and stop trying to water down better laws for worker protection (the same).

    Meanwhile, we have to hope that America's corrupt oilagarchy will begin to care about what is best for everyone and not just the greedy few.

patrick in Beijing

To the comment of China having a disadvantage over US and Europe because of its 'sudden' development:

That is a poor excuse. China has those histories as a resource. I suspect that the problems of China and other countries will be the same: greed, sense of entitlement, an attitude of 'my little bit of consumption won't hurt', exacerbated by poorly designed and enforced legislation.

Countries need to say "no" to the U.S. No, we will not accept your pollution. No, we will not accept your CO2-guzzling industries. (U.S. companies definitely should be credited with the carbon emissions generated by their industries outside the U.S.) It will be hard because that industry contributes to their prosperity.

America pointing fingers is a huge hypocrisy. Throughout history, America has been looked upon as a idea society, which others hope and try to emulate.  So, it should come as no surprise that as other countries begin to prosper, they too will take up "our" gluttonous ways.

Here's a thought: Why don't "we" (America) try to set a good example of the 3 eco-Rs: respect, responsibility, reserve.


NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

China's extremely corrupt one-party government

How exactly is that much different from America's extremely corrupt two-party corporatist government?

Joe Romm put it nicely in his book: America and China have a mutual suicide pact with respect to climate change. Neither has the governance model they need to get out of this mess.

http://www.javno.com/en/bestseller/clanak.php?id=112524

Mike Johnston

http://www.alternet.org/environment/72995/

Mike Johnston

In a multi-party system, ya can go with the "lesser of two evils".  Also, havin' a multi-party system, one that also allows for independent candidiates, provides for a wider variety of viewpoints and agendas.  It's basically competition.  If one party doesn't take up or ignores certain issues, then the other party can take up those issues in hopes of attracting voters concerned with those issues.

I doubt much in the way of environmental legislation would get passed in America if only the Republicans were in charge.

If the one-party system in China ignores environmental issues by and large, and prevents most actions by independent citizens to protest or find legal solutions to enforcing the laws, then the environment will fall by the wayside.

     The idea of just saying "no" is lovely.  But people with children to feed rarely do so.  This is true not just in China, but throughout the developing world.  Some of the children I teach live in rooms of about 15 X 15 with their family, water is down the street as is the toilet.  Heat is from coal.  This is actually better than many even poorer people face in parts of the developing world (food is cheap here, for instance).  What would you have them give up?

     America can and should (although American companies rarely really do, lots of lip service) insist on good labor and environmental practices AS LONG AS they are willing to pay for them.  Otherwise they are blaming people for not being able to do the impossible (which frankly is what a lot of the criticism directed at the developing world sounds like).

   Dear Easterbunny,

        If you look at what the press outside of the US is saying, you will get a different prospective.  At Bali, China was seen as one of the forces for helping the process succeed.  But you won't hear that much in the American MSM.  The Chinese government is trying to do a lot more with a lot less, but faces difficult struggles.  It is not engaged in a mutual suicide pact with the US.  The US is engaged in what it's ruling classes seem to believe is a survivable (for them) genoicide.

       Trying to cast the US and China as mutually responsible (a view held ONLY by the US) is what I call a distractor, by which I mean an excuse for inaction.  The Chinese are struggling to deal with their environmental problems, not waiting for the US.  It is the rest of the world that blames the US, not China.

   Dear Mike Johnston,

        It is not only the Chinese ice festival that is affected, there are also similar festivals in Scandinavia and Russia.  Many of the countries with Northern Cities have such festivals.  You seem to be implying that only China suffers.  Why?

        As to the number of "disturbances" or "riots", the Chinese government actually counts these which then gives people a figure to look at.  Most governments don't count them (and the MSM pretty much ignores them).  When I was in the US, I was in countless demonstrations most of which were never mentioned in the MSM.  And the governments never counted them either.  As to riots, what's happening to people protesting housing destruction in New Orleans??

       The demonstrations are a sign of a populace that believes their voices will be heard if they are raised (as is true throughout the world).  

   Dear Tasermons Partner,

       YOU believe the multi party systems addresses issues.  I don't see it.  There is no real discussion among the major two parties (both of which are largely center right these days) about environmental issues.  

       Republicans seem to care mainly about hating immigrants and fighting over who can best kill people or who hates gays and abortion the most.

       The Democrats talk about health care (good!!) and the economy (biofuel bad, but they don't seem to get that) (which may mean trying to keep gas prices down).  They don't talk about mass transit or signing on to international treaties about global warming.  It's not even clear that they will really stop the destruction of Iraq.

       This kind of (semi) multi-party system may best be described as a manipulated pseudo democracy.  It is better at propaganda than real discussion of issues (oh, wait,  you mean Brittney Spears ISN"T the most important issue of the day?).

       Look at the continued high number of SUVS sold.  Something is broke in America.  And merely picking between two parties in varying degrees of denial isn't going to fix it.

patrick in Beijing

Just how much of the cash handed over to China do ya think would actually do what it was intended to do?  Without "disapperaing mysteriously", being diverted to other projects, suddenly finding out that a developer is payin' his contractor (who just so happens to be his brother-in-law) several thousand dollars for a hammer, etc.?

I'd be surprised if more than half of the funds were used properly.

What would you have them give up? Health? Safety? If poor people are living and working in toxic and unsafe environments, how is that better for them? Wouldn't it be better that the country solicit healthier economic alternatives, even if it meant that the citizens were not as prosperous (financially speaking)?

As long as there are people willing to work in illegal/unsafe/unhealthy environments, and people/leaders willing to turn a blind eye, the situation will never improve.

[And, yes, I have given up financial security (often) to make what I believe is a moral decision.]  

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

       I get it.  You clearly indicate once again that you dislike China.  So, your goal is to make sure other people dislike China?  Insult the government so that no one will work with it?

       FWIW, lots of governments, corporations and NGO's find that they can work with the Chinese government. You don't, fine, probably they couldn't work with you either!!  (LOL)

       You seem to me to be mainly interested in China bashing.  Why?

   Dear Greta,

       It is nice to believe that people always have such simple choices.  In America, perhaps they do.  In developing countries, it is not always so.  One of the things that most international environmental organizations have learned is that you can't just yell at people to "save the earth".  A hungry person will indeed eat the last buffalo or tiger or elephant.  You have to provide alternatives, and do so by working with people not yelling insults (which I am not accusing you of doing, see others in the thread).

       Making the kinds of moral choices you talk about (and I have done so as well) is a luxury.  We can do so because we have options.  Poor people often either have no such options, or are not aware of them.

       Do people trade some bad health for money in their pockets to feed their families and educate their children?  Yes!!  In most of the world, people have been doing this throughout history.  And will continue to do so if they have no better choices.

       Wealthy countries need to make sure that their actions provide choices.  If that happens, then their will be pressure on the rest to provide better choices as well.  

       In stead of say "as long as there are people willing to work in ....", you might consider this idea, "as long as there are people who don't care how the workers who produce their goods are treated.....".  

       The power belongs to those with the wealth, not those without.  If Americans get serious about the sources of their products (and are willing to put their money where their mouths are, ie, pay prices that support fair treatment of workers and sustainable development), things will change.

       Blaming workers in developing countries for needing to feed their families is like blaming undocumented workers in America for being exploited.  It's not they who have the power to change things, that lies in our hands.

patrick in Beijing

       You seem to me to be mainly interested in China bashing.  Why?

patrick, you are sadly mistaken.  I happen to like China very much.  China is a place rich in culture, heritage, history, and can be very beautiful with many unique enviros and species found nowhere else on earth.  China is a great place with great potential.

The problem I have is with China's so-called "culture of corruption" and how it has inflicted itself onto the ruling party.  Adhering to the ideas behind socialism, the Chinese government should do what is best for its people and serve them and the country, instead of their own personal interests.  Sadly, most of China's higher-ups see their positions not as a way to help others and improve their country, but as a way to gain money and power.

Most of those corporations ya mentioned that do business in China do so by lining the pockets of government officials through nefarious means (bribes, selected contracts, etc.).  If the government officials would take that money and their jobs seriously in order to help the population, then China could evolve at a much faster rate, its population could escape poverty quicker and be healthier, crime wouldn't be a s bad, and its environmental dilemmas wouldn't be as bad.  

China is a great place...its the people that run it that need to be replaced.  Really, I don't even have a problem with a one-party socialist system...if it's done right.  But as with China, it seldom is, and instead creates a social order of arisocratic politicians who feel the main benefits of their positions are personal and not social (that is, not of benefit to the people).

If things don't change quickly, then China may lose much of what makes it such a unique and great place...its natural wonders will be degraded, its biodiversity eliminated, and its cultural heritage will be wiped out in the name of "progress" that really isn't progress and will only benefit a few and not the many, and much of the population will be left behind and poisoned.

I like China, but I fear what it could turn into if the corruption isn't stopped in time.

   Dear Tasermons Partner,

       You make a number of claims without providing any evidence to back them up.

       You say  "The problem I have is with China's so-called "culture of corruption" and how it has inflicted itself onto the ruling party."  Do you have evidence of this??  You seem to be suggesting that everything is corrupt.  It is helpful when making sweeping statements to offer as proof something other than "everyone knows or everyone believes".  (You must not believe in evolution, right, since "everyone knows" Americans are all Christians and "everyone knows" Christians don't believe in evolution.)

       Certainly, you are entitled to your "opinion" that "instead creates a social order of arisocratic politicians who feel the main benefits of their positions are personal and not social (that is, not of benefit to the people)", but you persist in presenting this as fact, not as an opinion.  How disingenuous!!!

       It is an old debating trick to say "why I love Republicans and no one is sorrier than I am that they are such a bunch of thieving criminals".  Your posts and language suggest, that no matter what you "claim" that you have some deep dislike of China and the government.  (It's not America that people dislike, it is merely the government and people of America... yeah).

       Do you love America??  What will you do to stop the corruption in America??  Or is that not as bothersome to  you??

       Your constant use of sweeping condemnations of China and its government render essentially meaningless any pseudo declarations of love.  Instead of providing factual criticism, or helpful suggestions, is that really the best you can do??

       That dog don't hunt.  It does quack, however.

patrick in Beijing

    Speaking of which, here are couple.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-01/10/content_638 ...

    And,

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-01/10/content_638 ...

    The first one talks about China's move towards renewables.  I suspect the China Bashers will ignore it, but here is similar information from a Western perspective.

    Look at

    http://www.worldwatch.org/

    and

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5557

    plus

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5496

    The last one is a review of a book about China's move towards renewable energy.  I certainly don't expect people who have a bias against China to pay any attention, but for those who want to learn, these are not bad starts.

    The problem with the kind of sweeping China Bashing engaged in by folks like Tasermons Partner (though he/she is not the only one) is that in a time when China is rising as a world economic power (though it has a long ways to go, it's sheer size makes its influence felt even now), it is important for Americans to decide if they want to regard China as a friend and ally, or as an enemy.

    In making that decision, it is helpful to have lots of information, not merely grand sweeping declarations.

    The future is coming, we need education to be ready for it!!

patrick in Beijing

Here are some links which should provide research:
The Carnegie Endowment, highly respected
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?f ...
The report states corruption costs China $86 Billion (USD) a year...money that could be spent helpin' improve the country, but isn't.

China.org even has a list of the ten signs of Chinese corruption
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Jun/66715.htm

China's first anti-corruption website, which was set up just last year, crashed within hours due to the high amounts of complaints of instances of corruption
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/12/19/chinas-corru ...

Strategy Page says China is for sale
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20070507 ...

Austrialn News agrees
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,229331 ...

Chinaview has entire archives of news and reports for China's corruption and giovernment abuse
http://chinaview.wordpress.com/category/social/corruption ...

The US embassy says that China's corruption, unemployment and environmental concerns are all linked and may be getting worse (this one's a little older though)
http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/poll-reform.htm

The Charleston reports on how corruption in China has a global effect
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/08/why_chinese_co ...

Economist.com
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?stor ...

China has taken steps to try and curb its corruption (mostly out of fear that its becomin' so rampant it'll reflect poorly on the Communist party), but by and large, it's still not enforced or punished.

And that claim I make 'bout likin' China but not it's governement also applies to America, as a matter of fact, which is why I'm so hopeful that it might change with the upcoming elections soon.  America can be a great country, but the government has definite problems that need to be solved, the quicker the better.

In my mind people are people wherever they are. China is noteworthy at the moment because they are growing their economy so fast. This opens the door to both opportunity to take a different path than the developed countries did or to follow the same one. Creation of an elite management class within which all of the wealth is concentrated is following the same path. Doing whatever it takes to get the job done while ignoring the impact on the environment is the same path.

The United States could be competitive with China if we repeal the minimum wage and get rid of various government money wasters (like OSHA for example). Along with that we could repeal fair housing laws, etc. That would allow market forces to determine wages and living standards. Then imports from China couldn't compete with American made goods.

It isn't just China either, this same scenario repeats itself over and over again in all of the developing countries. It is happening in the United States today but on a different level. Skilled jobs are being outsourced to cheaper countries. Good paying, middle class manufacturing jobs are almost gone.

On a brighter note, legal work is now being outsourced to India too so even professional jobs are starting to feel the threat of low rate foreign competitors.

It is undoubtedly good business to cut costs wherever you can but there have to be some limits somewhere. Look at the trucking industry for example. At one point in time truck driving was a very good paying job. Of course truck drivers gave up a lot in the way of personal life to make that money.

Then in the 80's Reagan de-regulated the industry and essentially broke the unions at the same time. The result was slightly cheaper freight rates and that helped the economy but truck driver wages fell. In the late 70's experienced truck drivers could make up to 125,000 a year. Today that same job only pays 40 - 50k.

Bush's current efforts to open the borders to Mexican trucking companies will drive the wages down further.

Mike Johnston

      There is corruption in both countries, some of your links are instructive, many are old.  I couldn't open the Carnegie report when I downloaded it.  However, you misquote it.  It says "could be as much as $86 billion a year", this means no body knows, but they are offering their highest estimate.  As usual, you overstate the situation.  The US government has a $450 billion budget that can't be audited (the pentagon).  Can't be audited.  If that doesn't reek of corruption, what does?  And there are the billions that have vanished into Iraq, in cash yet!!!

      The China.org link is to an old report talking about corruption ten and twenty years ago.  You might as well criticize the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan as if it were current.

      The Strategy Page piece is unsigned opinion, I urge people to read it as a great example of "bashing", if you think not, substitute America for China and read it again.

      The US embassy site is a bit strange, I worry about a government that creates such unprofessional web pages.  I was unable to get to your links from the main page, I urge people to follow it and think for themselves.

      You should go back and read the Charleston Article, again, especially the instructive comment at the bottom.  

      The Economist article is further unsigned opinion.  (My favorite of theirs was one wondering why poor people in Equador were rioting against their condition, didn't they know that the free market would less their condition in say 30 or 40 years (maybe), in the meantime they should be happy to starve).

      Frankly as a collection of pieces, I am not exactly wowed.

      Why don't you look at ChinaDaily.  They frequently have pieces about corruption, how serious it is, and what is being done to combat it.  Which is hardly the picture of a government that is not concerned with corruption.

      Of course, in America, corruption is so endemic that people no longer recognize it as such (I am talking about the huge amounts of campaign contributions that flow from corporate interests to politicians.)

     So, there is corruption in the US and there is corruption in China and pretty much every other country in the world (the British press has been muzzled from discussing corruption related to Saudi Arabia).

     You have indicated that you think the government needs to be replaced, wait, which one was that?? (LOL)

     The point being??  That you focus on the corruption of only one country, exaggerate it, and continue to make sweeping statements about that country, while proclaiming your love for it...

    Strange kind of love there.....

    Bashing is criticism that is intended to attack or destroy by the sweeping force of its imagined grandeur, but that lacks substantive ideas for change or offers of help.

    If you read what I write, you may notice (or not, as you wish), that I often suggest that Americans try to do constructive things to help improve the environmental and/or labor situations in China.  You poohed poohed the idea.

    That leaves you as a basher, since you offer no realistic ideas on how to improve things, but merely "bash".

    Your choice, really.  I hope you love America in a more constructive fashion!!! (smile)

patrick in Beijing

      The difference between China and the US isn't only wages.  For instance, take waitresses.  They make between 600-800 yuan a month (some more, perhaps), a salary of less than to just over $100.  A US waitress makes, say $1200 a month (or more or less depending on conditions, but some make this little).  The Chinese waitress gets free housing (a bed in a dormitory with light and heat for free) and free food.  Her basic expenses are so low, she can save 500+ yuan a month to send to her family.  In America, the waitress, after taxes, rent and other costs has to borrow money each month just to survive (Monstersball, for whatever else you thought of it, had a rare semi-honest discussion of a waitress life).

     Differences include the cost of everything (smile), what is subsidized by the government (in China this includes rent (property ownership by the government can help keep costs down), electricity (cheap power helps everyone at the bottom), and food (cheap food means that low wages are bearable), in the US, subsidies mainly go to the rich, which means that for the poor, nothing is particularly bearable) (except education).

    So, it's not just a matter of direct wages, but what the costs associated with labor include.

    In terms of the skilled jobs, some have been outsourced, but there is a miracle of the system we ignore at our peril.

    While everyone is focusing on outsourcing (the story told to us by the ruling class), they ignore the role of monopolization.  Where once, there were hundreds of regional banks, there are now only a few massive national banks.  This has benefited the wealthy, but not the workers (nor the customers).

    In terms of manufacturing jobs, it is not just a matter of workers in other countries being willing to work for less (they want as much as they can get, duhh!!), it is a matter of government(s) in wealthy countries not requiring their corporations to meet reasonable labor and environmental standards.

    The customer is always right.  In this case, the customer demands cheap, cheap, cheap, workers and environment be damned.

     And damned they are, but not by their own desires, but by the indifference of their customers in developed-land.

patrick in Beijing

Of course there is a huge difference in cost of living in China and a vast difference in what conditions workers will accept. But what you describe reminds me of the conditions back in the day when the local coal company owned the town. All of the workers in the town worked in the mine or in jobs which supported the miners. Families lived in company housing and shopped at the company store.

Eventually that model didn't work out in the US.

To decide whether or not the waitress in your example is making a fair wage you would have to first know how much profit is the direct result of her labor. Then see what percentage of after expense profits are represented by her wages.

Labor unions are supposed to exist to negotiate contracts for workers which allowed them to receive wages which represented a fair percentage of the profits that were generated by their efforts. The Chinese workers do have government run labor unions but are they getting a fair percentage of the wealth that they create? From what I have read the answer seems to be no.

1. The current labor union election in China cannot effectively protect labor rights.

2. Wal-Mart cannot undertake all responsibilities
   

3) LABOR UNIONS IN A RIFT OVER COMMUNIST CHINA
A high-ranking delegation of American labor leaders recently traveled to China and met with the president of the government-controlled "union," who is also the Communist Party official in charge of suppressing worker unrest on the Chinese mainland.

4) China Has Jailed Many Labor Activists
The UAW and AFL-CIO are fighting for the release of all those in China who have been jailed for their labor activity.

I just thought I would throw those links in there. So China's system is not perfect yet but then again neither is anyone else's. I am not trying to bash China but only trying to flesh out the discussion.

Mike Johnston

Gee, I wonder why ya couldn't download it? *  rolls eyes *  Could it possibly be because China is so embarrassed by its corruption that it's blockin' the site?

Also, of course they don't know absolutely for certain how much money is wasted by corruption!  What did ya expect, a formal survey in which the government officials put down how much money they got in bribes last year?  This is the Carnegie Foundation we're talkin' 'bout here!  One of the most pretigious and well-known on earth.  If ya wanna argue with their findings, ya can.  But so far, nobody else has (includin' the Chinese government).

   There are generally speaking, no company stores (certainly not of the kind from American fame).  Where there are special stores, they tend to offer cheaper prices.  Workers in many companies change jobs often.  If they want more money, or a better deal, they leave.  Many factories in the South and East have shortages of workers, and there is some wage inflation as a result.  Good!!!

    The worst abuses seem to occur on large construction projects.  The government has special units to help workers with problems there, but clearly they are not enough.  They are working on it, is it good yet?  No.  (Remember developing country).

    As far as I know (in small and medium sized businesses in places like Beijing), no one has to live in the company housing, and a few people don't (they have relatives or some other cheap or free place to stay).  Most of the free housing is close by and convenient.  It isn't fancy, but many of the people working in these jobs are young, so sacrificing while being able to send money home seems like a good deal to them.

    (Sacrificing for your family is a cultural value.)

    The government has sued various multinational (and Chinese) companies over labor rights and violations.  Is it enough?  Nope.  They need to do  more.  They say so themselves.

    As for American unions, they should work to organize American workers first.  These days they more resemble the famous "Knights of Labor" than the CIO.

     I spent several years of my life in a union organizing drive in America, and I can speak from first hand experience to how greatly the deck is stacked against workers there.

     America has the "form" of free unions, but there is no legal protection of workers rights to  organize (not effectively).  Which is why people are anxious to do away with elections, they are't free, but are manipulated.

     The treatment of American farmworkers would be scandalous if anyone cared.  Not much sign.  Now people want to codify second class citzenship for agricultural workers forever.  

     The use of prison labor is also scandalous.  All of those prisoners fighting to save multi-million dollar homes for $1 an hour in California would be a scandal if anyone cared.  (I wait in vain for a presidential candidate to say so.)

     It has always seemed to me that when I post about the rights of American labor, discussion dies. (sigh).  It is always easier to look far away at problems elsewhere than to look closely at the problems around us.

     (For instance, my room is terribly cluttered, so it is a stretch for me to even use the word "organize".) (LOL)

     If people want to talk usefully about the status of Chinese workers, put pressure on American corporations to 1) obey the laws  2) treat workers better than the laws  3) stop lobbying against improvements in the laws.

     (The above might also be useful in regard to American workers!!!)

patrick in Beijing  

    More political posturing.

patrick in Beijing

     I did download it, the file wouldn't open.  Sloppy web work is not the fault of the Chinese government.

     If you had read what I wrote, you would have noticed this.  This kind of sweeping over-reaction is why you seem to me to be "China bashing".

     Since I can't read their findings (or their fellow's findings), I can't agree or disagree.  Of course I know who Carnegie is (the American famous for building his wealth by abusing workers, right?).  The endowment is one of those typical full of prominent wealthy Americans NGO's.  They don't intersect much with my life.

     As to your statement that no one disagrees with them, do you have any evidence or is this more of your hyperbole?

     BTW, who do you like for President?

patrick in Beijing

I also agree about the plight of farm workers in the US.

It also seems to me that Bush's enthusiasm for bringing in more immigrants from Mexico is just an effort to drive US wages down further. Of course illegal immigrants are a rather handy new slave class with no voice and so they are being exploited as well with almost equal enthusiasm.

Mike Johnston

As for president, anyone of the Democratic frontrunners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) as well as Rebulican McCain would be a definite improvement over the current administrtaion, in my personal opinion.

   Dear Mike,

       I am hopeful that progressive folks in the local/organic movements will work to ensure that concerns for farmworkers (both immigrant and native born) are included in their proposals.  (Everyone in such movements is not progressive, but a number of people are.)

       While much of the American agricultural temporary (seasonal) labor is composed of recent immigrants (or long term ones without papers), not all of it is.  I remember not that many years ago talking to some homeless young people who had signed on to go pick crops in Oregon.  They left full of optimism that this would be a good chance for them.

       Was it, or were they exploited and cheated?  Both are possible.  Unfortunately, we lack the kinds of programs that would protect agricultural workers rights in the US.  And I appreciate your concern, it is not a popular issue for the most part (never has been..).

       It seems to me that one of the current top priorities for labor in America must be establishing the rights of immigrant workers.  If there is truly a legal class of second class workers in this country, the labor movement is doomed.

      My old union was Local 1199.  Great days.

patrick in Beijing