Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Groups get grants to teach kids about environment
Two Illinois groups are getting federal grants to help teach students about environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded $39,000 to Friends of the Fox River in Crystal Lake. Teachers and students will collect data on biological, chemical and physical water trends along the river. Angelic Organics Learning Center in Caledonia will receive more than $18,000 to provide hands-on food and farming activities for 6th- through 12th-graders and their teachers. The EPA grants are awarded annually.
AG Brown offers to mediate dispute over stalled Chevron project in Richmond
State Attorney General Jerry Brown is offering to help hash out a deal among Richmond, Chevron and environmentalists to resume construction at the local refinery, where about 1,000 workers have been laid off, but not everyone wants Brown at the table.
City officials and the environmentalists accepted Brown's offer; Chevron thinks settlement talks should continue without him.
"The parties agreed to private mediation, before a highly qualified mediator proposed by the plaintiffs and agreed to by Chevron and the city of Richmond," refinery spokesman Brent Tippen said Wednesday. "Chevron has invested significant time and effort in this mediation process and believes that the agreed-upon private mediation has the greatest likelihood for resolving this dispute."
Construction to replace the refinery's hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude stopped about two weeks ago under court order. A Contra Costa Superior Court judge ordered permits suspended until lingering questions in the project's environmental impact report are answered.
Chevron, the city and environmental groups have met multiple times to try to reach a settlement. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement and have been tight-lipped, but multiple sources say talks have reached an impasse.
It's not unusual for settlement talks to temporarily stop if everyone needs time to think about issues and solutions away from the bargaining table, Tippen said. He added that Chevron
hopes talks can resume soon.
Brown made his offer at Tuesday night's City Council meeting before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 350, most of them union workers recently laid off from the Chevron project. The crowd greeted Brown's offer with a standing ovation as they pleaded to return to work.
"The sides aren't that far apart," Brown said. "Give me a call and I'll be here, and we'll get it solved."
The council voted unanimously to accept Brown's offer. Councilman Tom Butt hopes a high-profile political figure such as Brown, who is familiar with the issue, can move talks forward.
"It sure wouldn't hurt to give it a shot," Butt said Wednesday. "He's a plain-spoken person. He won't beat around the bush. That's what a good mediator does."
Mimi Ho, program director with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, speaking on behalf of the environmental groups, said: "We are ready, willing and able to join Jerry Brown in settlement talks. The health of Richmond's community and workers are at stake."
Brown stepped into the fray in early 2008 when he penned three letters stating that the EIR is flawed and pushing for reductions in air and greenhouse gas emissions. Brown hired a chemist, who studied the project and concluded the refinery would be able to refine heavier, more contaminated crude, echoing a concern that environmental groups have raised about increased pollution.
Chevron has insisted that replacing old equipment makes the refinery safer and more efficient, and that it will continue to refine light to intermediate crude. It has filed an appeal to the state to overturn the earlier court ruling.
A divided City Council approved the EIR and the project with a host of mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts. The environmentalists argued that the measures don't go far enough; in September, the West County Toxics Coalition, Communities for a Better Environment and Asian Pacific Environmental Network sued the city and Chevron.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council urged the parties Wednesday to let Brown in the negotiating room.
"Over 1,200 Building Trades men and women have been laid off, over 3,000 secondary jobs related to this project will be lost," the council wrote in a statement. "lt is of the utmost importance that all parties act responsibly and reach a settlement as soon as possible. Our local Building Trades men and women and our local economy depend on it."
Reprint
City officials and the environmentalists accepted Brown's offer; Chevron thinks settlement talks should continue without him.
"The parties agreed to private mediation, before a highly qualified mediator proposed by the plaintiffs and agreed to by Chevron and the city of Richmond," refinery spokesman Brent Tippen said Wednesday. "Chevron has invested significant time and effort in this mediation process and believes that the agreed-upon private mediation has the greatest likelihood for resolving this dispute."
Construction to replace the refinery's hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude stopped about two weeks ago under court order. A Contra Costa Superior Court judge ordered permits suspended until lingering questions in the project's environmental impact report are answered.
Chevron, the city and environmental groups have met multiple times to try to reach a settlement. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement and have been tight-lipped, but multiple sources say talks have reached an impasse.
It's not unusual for settlement talks to temporarily stop if everyone needs time to think about issues and solutions away from the bargaining table, Tippen said. He added that Chevron
hopes talks can resume soon.
Brown made his offer at Tuesday night's City Council meeting before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 350, most of them union workers recently laid off from the Chevron project. The crowd greeted Brown's offer with a standing ovation as they pleaded to return to work.
"The sides aren't that far apart," Brown said. "Give me a call and I'll be here, and we'll get it solved."
The council voted unanimously to accept Brown's offer. Councilman Tom Butt hopes a high-profile political figure such as Brown, who is familiar with the issue, can move talks forward.
"It sure wouldn't hurt to give it a shot," Butt said Wednesday. "He's a plain-spoken person. He won't beat around the bush. That's what a good mediator does."
Mimi Ho, program director with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, speaking on behalf of the environmental groups, said: "We are ready, willing and able to join Jerry Brown in settlement talks. The health of Richmond's community and workers are at stake."
Brown stepped into the fray in early 2008 when he penned three letters stating that the EIR is flawed and pushing for reductions in air and greenhouse gas emissions. Brown hired a chemist, who studied the project and concluded the refinery would be able to refine heavier, more contaminated crude, echoing a concern that environmental groups have raised about increased pollution.
Chevron has insisted that replacing old equipment makes the refinery safer and more efficient, and that it will continue to refine light to intermediate crude. It has filed an appeal to the state to overturn the earlier court ruling.
A divided City Council approved the EIR and the project with a host of mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts. The environmentalists argued that the measures don't go far enough; in September, the West County Toxics Coalition, Communities for a Better Environment and Asian Pacific Environmental Network sued the city and Chevron.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council urged the parties Wednesday to let Brown in the negotiating room.
"Over 1,200 Building Trades men and women have been laid off, over 3,000 secondary jobs related to this project will be lost," the council wrote in a statement. "lt is of the utmost importance that all parties act responsibly and reach a settlement as soon as possible. Our local Building Trades men and women and our local economy depend on it."
Reprint
Evidence found of grand scale party by ancient humans 4,000 years ago
Researchers from the University of Missouri have found evidence of a grand scale party by ancient humans 4,000 years ago, in the form of remnants that still remain in the gourds and squashes that served as dishware at a Buena Vista site.
The researchers studied the residues from gourds and squash artifacts that date back to 2200 B.C. and recovered starch grains from manioc, potato, chili pepper, arrowroot and algarrobo.
The starches provide clues about the foods consumed at feasts and document the earliest evidence of the consumption of algarrobo and arrowroot in Peru.
"Archaeological starch grain research allows us to gain a better understanding of how ancient humans used plants, the types of food they ate, and how that food was prepared," said Neil Duncan, doctoral student of anthropology in the MU College of Arts and Science and lead author of the study.
"This is the first study to analyze residue from bottle gourd or squash artifacts. Squash and bottle gourds had a variety of uses 4,000 years ago, including being used as dishes, net floats and symbolic containers. Residue analysis can help determine the specific use," he added.
In the study, researchers recovered starch grains from squash and gourd artifacts by a method that currently is used to recover microfossils from stone tools and ceramics.
First, the artifact was placed in a special water bath to loosen and remove adhering residue. Then, the artifact's interior surface was lightly brushed to remove any remaining residue.
The residues were collected, and starch grains were isolated from each of these sediments.
"The starch residues of edible plants found on the artifacts and the special archaeological context from which these artifacts were recovered suggest that the artifacts were used in a ritual setting for the serving and production of food," Duncan said.
"The method used in this study could be used in other areas and time periods in which gourds and squash rinds are preserved," he added.
Scientists believe the Buena Vista site, where the starch grains were recovered, served as a small ceremonial center in the central Chillon Valley.
The social and ritual use of food is not well understood during this time period in Peru, but this research will enhance the potential for understanding, according to Duncan
The researchers studied the residues from gourds and squash artifacts that date back to 2200 B.C. and recovered starch grains from manioc, potato, chili pepper, arrowroot and algarrobo.
The starches provide clues about the foods consumed at feasts and document the earliest evidence of the consumption of algarrobo and arrowroot in Peru.
"Archaeological starch grain research allows us to gain a better understanding of how ancient humans used plants, the types of food they ate, and how that food was prepared," said Neil Duncan, doctoral student of anthropology in the MU College of Arts and Science and lead author of the study.
"This is the first study to analyze residue from bottle gourd or squash artifacts. Squash and bottle gourds had a variety of uses 4,000 years ago, including being used as dishes, net floats and symbolic containers. Residue analysis can help determine the specific use," he added.
In the study, researchers recovered starch grains from squash and gourd artifacts by a method that currently is used to recover microfossils from stone tools and ceramics.
First, the artifact was placed in a special water bath to loosen and remove adhering residue. Then, the artifact's interior surface was lightly brushed to remove any remaining residue.
The residues were collected, and starch grains were isolated from each of these sediments.
"The starch residues of edible plants found on the artifacts and the special archaeological context from which these artifacts were recovered suggest that the artifacts were used in a ritual setting for the serving and production of food," Duncan said.
"The method used in this study could be used in other areas and time periods in which gourds and squash rinds are preserved," he added.
Scientists believe the Buena Vista site, where the starch grains were recovered, served as a small ceremonial center in the central Chillon Valley.
The social and ritual use of food is not well understood during this time period in Peru, but this research will enhance the potential for understanding, according to Duncan
SC climate change forum features Sen. Warner
Former U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia is visiting the South Carolina coast for two days to discuss climate change and how it affects energy and the nation's security.
Warner arrives Wednesday for a Charleston forum sponsored by the Pew Environment Group which is holding sessions nationwide to listen and share information about the connection between national security and the environment.
A highlight of the Charleston session is a Thursday panel discussion at The Citadel. Besides Warner, panelists include Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Environmental Group and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley.
Warner arrives Wednesday for a Charleston forum sponsored by the Pew Environment Group which is holding sessions nationwide to listen and share information about the connection between national security and the environment.
A highlight of the Charleston session is a Thursday panel discussion at The Citadel. Besides Warner, panelists include Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Environmental Group and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley.
Kerry panel looks at climate change and national security
Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked, a Senate panel was warned today.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.
"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."
Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.
For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.
From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."
"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."
Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.
Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."
Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.
"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.
Correction: This item has been revised because of a reporting error that misstated the title for Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security.
Kerry's full opening statement is below:
KERRY'S PREPARED OPENING REMARKS
We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future. It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching. Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders. Fortunately, America’s most trusted security voices—including those here today—have been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.” This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPs—environmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us. Nowhere is the nexus between today’s threats and climate change more acute than in South Asia–the home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035. Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction. Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the world’s population but just two percent of the world’s water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree.Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness. Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dots—if we fail to take action—the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world. We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy. I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warner’s gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacle—a tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warner’s own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue. Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project. Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Center’s work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges. Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.
"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."
Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.
For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.
From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."
"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."
Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.
Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."
Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.
"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.
Correction: This item has been revised because of a reporting error that misstated the title for Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security.
Kerry's full opening statement is below:
KERRY'S PREPARED OPENING REMARKS
We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future. It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching. Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders. Fortunately, America’s most trusted security voices—including those here today—have been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.” This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPs—environmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us. Nowhere is the nexus between today’s threats and climate change more acute than in South Asia–the home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035. Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction. Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the world’s population but just two percent of the world’s water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree.Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness. Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dots—if we fail to take action—the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world. We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy. I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warner’s gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacle—a tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warner’s own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue. Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project. Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Center’s work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges. Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar
Economy in China Regains Robust Pace of Growth
Propelled by a big economic stimulus package and aggressive bank lending, China’s economy grew by 7.9 percent in the second quarter compared with a year ago, the government said on Thursday, a surprisingly strong showing during the global economic downturn.China’s growth spurt is also presenting a new set of challenges, including questions about the sustainability of the growth and worries that record bank lending could result in wasteful spending and a large jump in nonperforming loans.
Still, while most other major economies are contracting and suffering through the worst economic crisis in decades, China appears to have turned a corner, analysts say.
The gross domestic product figures, released by the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing, suggest that the country’s stimulus policies are working and that the government will most likely achieve the 8 percent full-year growth target it set early this year, analysts say.
After a sharp slowdown this year, when the pace of growth dipped to 6.1 percent, down from 13 percent in 2007, China’s economy has rebounded.
“This is a stunning recovery,” said Andy Rothman, an economist based in Shanghai at the brokerage firm CLSA. “And it’s also not just the government money fueling the recovery. The private sector is also recovering, and that’s the key.”
Growth in the second quarter was driven by strong auto and property sales, a rebound in manufacturing and huge infrastructure spending, which is propping up global commodity prices.
“Demand for steel has rallied strongly in the last six months,” said Jim Lennon, a steel analyst at Macquarie Securities based in London. “Many Chinese steel producers are now operating at full capacity. The Chinese are the only growth market for steel.”
With exports still suffering a major slowdown, falling this year more than 20 percent from a year ago, they have not been a major growth driver this year, and that is a significant change from other years.
Many countries are relying on government-financed stimulus projects for growth this year. But China has turned to its state-owned banks, which have already made more than $1 trillion in loans through June, more than doubling lending from all of 2008. The most important step the government took late last year was to remove the credit controls it had put in place in 2007 and to tell banks to increase lending, Mr. Rothman said.
“This recovery is much more reliant on bank lending,” said Wang Tao, chief China economist at UBS Securities. “In the last few months, the bank lending has been massive — beyond anyone’s imagination.”
The dynamics of the economy have begun to shift slightly this year, away from the once-booming coastal provinces and toward less developed regions in central and western China.
But some analysts remain skeptical of China’s statistics, questioning whether the government is releasing overly rosy figures and masking serious troubles in the economy. They point to weak electricity consumption figures and a sharp drop in foreign investment as indications that growth may not be as strong as reported in official data. Also, the country does not report official unemployment figures, so it is difficult to gauge how workers are faring .
But many economic experts insisted there were more signs of strength than of weakness, and that record bank lending is filtering through the economy and helping drive growth.
“This is probably the only major economy in the world where manufacturing employment is rising,” said Mr. Rothman at CLSA.
Most analysts are now forecasting strong growth for the second half of this year, at close to 9 percent above a year earlier. But there are risks emerging, too.
Property prices are skyrocketing again in some parts of the country. And Shanghai’s stock market is up about 75 percent, after a huge drop last year.
Some experts say the stock market has been propped up partly by state-owned companies that are once again speculating on stocks rather than investing in their businesses.
The government and economists are also worried about asset price inflation and the possibility that aggressive lending from state-owned banks will result in a wave of nonperforming loans in the coming years.
“They are the two biggest worries for the government,” said Ms. Wang at UBS Securities. “It’s impossible to make so many loans in such a short period and not have problems.”
Still, while most other major economies are contracting and suffering through the worst economic crisis in decades, China appears to have turned a corner, analysts say.
The gross domestic product figures, released by the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing, suggest that the country’s stimulus policies are working and that the government will most likely achieve the 8 percent full-year growth target it set early this year, analysts say.
After a sharp slowdown this year, when the pace of growth dipped to 6.1 percent, down from 13 percent in 2007, China’s economy has rebounded.
“This is a stunning recovery,” said Andy Rothman, an economist based in Shanghai at the brokerage firm CLSA. “And it’s also not just the government money fueling the recovery. The private sector is also recovering, and that’s the key.”
Growth in the second quarter was driven by strong auto and property sales, a rebound in manufacturing and huge infrastructure spending, which is propping up global commodity prices.
“Demand for steel has rallied strongly in the last six months,” said Jim Lennon, a steel analyst at Macquarie Securities based in London. “Many Chinese steel producers are now operating at full capacity. The Chinese are the only growth market for steel.”
With exports still suffering a major slowdown, falling this year more than 20 percent from a year ago, they have not been a major growth driver this year, and that is a significant change from other years.
Many countries are relying on government-financed stimulus projects for growth this year. But China has turned to its state-owned banks, which have already made more than $1 trillion in loans through June, more than doubling lending from all of 2008. The most important step the government took late last year was to remove the credit controls it had put in place in 2007 and to tell banks to increase lending, Mr. Rothman said.
“This recovery is much more reliant on bank lending,” said Wang Tao, chief China economist at UBS Securities. “In the last few months, the bank lending has been massive — beyond anyone’s imagination.”
The dynamics of the economy have begun to shift slightly this year, away from the once-booming coastal provinces and toward less developed regions in central and western China.
But some analysts remain skeptical of China’s statistics, questioning whether the government is releasing overly rosy figures and masking serious troubles in the economy. They point to weak electricity consumption figures and a sharp drop in foreign investment as indications that growth may not be as strong as reported in official data. Also, the country does not report official unemployment figures, so it is difficult to gauge how workers are faring .
But many economic experts insisted there were more signs of strength than of weakness, and that record bank lending is filtering through the economy and helping drive growth.
“This is probably the only major economy in the world where manufacturing employment is rising,” said Mr. Rothman at CLSA.
Most analysts are now forecasting strong growth for the second half of this year, at close to 9 percent above a year earlier. But there are risks emerging, too.
Property prices are skyrocketing again in some parts of the country. And Shanghai’s stock market is up about 75 percent, after a huge drop last year.
Some experts say the stock market has been propped up partly by state-owned companies that are once again speculating on stocks rather than investing in their businesses.
The government and economists are also worried about asset price inflation and the possibility that aggressive lending from state-owned banks will result in a wave of nonperforming loans in the coming years.
“They are the two biggest worries for the government,” said Ms. Wang at UBS Securities. “It’s impossible to make so many loans in such a short period and not have problems.”
Busting climate myths
majority of Americans continue believe that climate change is correctly portrayed or even underestimated in the news media, buIt's a vocal 41 percent, and they draw on a stock set of arguments to attack the credibility of scientists, politicians and environmentalists who claim that humans are spurring dangerous climate change. Like me, you may wonder where these arguments come from and whether they have any validity.
The most common argument, and the one I will focus on in this first of several installments, is that many credible scientists dispute the theory of anthropogenic (or human-caused) climate change asserted by U.N. scientists in the 2007 IPCC report that found that humans were almost certainly causing the climate to change.
This argument forms a part of any remotely reasonable rebuttal of climate change, because, most would agree, no one other than a qualified scientist can offer a credible argument on the point. A given dissenter may point to a claim that sun spots are causing climate change or that the climate simply isn't changing, but unless the argument originally came from to a qualified scientist, it's no more credible than citing Nostradamus, your neighborhood bartender, or "some guy."
The office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, has aggressively advanced this argument, most recently releasing a report finding that nearly 700 scientists believed any efforts to stem climate change by changing human behavior were premature, because the science was still shaky at best.
The Center for Inquiry, a group advancing scientific study of human beliefs and culture, has taken up the question: What makes a qualified scientist?
They ought to have a degree, preferably a Ph.D. in a field related to the climate, and they ought to be publishing in peer-reviewed journals on topics related to climate. Of the 687 people Inhofe listed as credible dissenters, the Center for Inquiry found:
• Fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. • Just 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
It also bears repeating that Inhofe's office claimed this his group of 700 outnumbered the 52 authors of the IPCC report. This claim itself showed a serious disregard for science and the fair use of statistics. 52 scientists wrote the IPCC report, yes, but they were explicitly summarizing the work of more than 2,000 scientists who contributed research.
But let's say that 69 of Inhofe's scientists were legit. Does that mean anthropogenic climate change is little more than a hunch? No. First, we would have to see what exactly their objections were. And, secondly, it's normal and acceptable for there to be some disagreement among scientists. Doubts and questions lead to research, and more research leads to a better understanding of the problem at hand. No one claims that we know everything to know about climate change. But we do know that we're playing an important role in causing it, and that it will likely lead to very bad outcomes.
We also know that acting to slow climate change won't break the world's economy—on the contrary. And it will also reduce other forms of pollution, including soot, that have been linked to serious health problems and lower IQs. a record high 41 percent believe risks are exaggerated.
The most common argument, and the one I will focus on in this first of several installments, is that many credible scientists dispute the theory of anthropogenic (or human-caused) climate change asserted by U.N. scientists in the 2007 IPCC report that found that humans were almost certainly causing the climate to change.
This argument forms a part of any remotely reasonable rebuttal of climate change, because, most would agree, no one other than a qualified scientist can offer a credible argument on the point. A given dissenter may point to a claim that sun spots are causing climate change or that the climate simply isn't changing, but unless the argument originally came from to a qualified scientist, it's no more credible than citing Nostradamus, your neighborhood bartender, or "some guy."
The office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, has aggressively advanced this argument, most recently releasing a report finding that nearly 700 scientists believed any efforts to stem climate change by changing human behavior were premature, because the science was still shaky at best.
The Center for Inquiry, a group advancing scientific study of human beliefs and culture, has taken up the question: What makes a qualified scientist?
They ought to have a degree, preferably a Ph.D. in a field related to the climate, and they ought to be publishing in peer-reviewed journals on topics related to climate. Of the 687 people Inhofe listed as credible dissenters, the Center for Inquiry found:
• Fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. • Just 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
It also bears repeating that Inhofe's office claimed this his group of 700 outnumbered the 52 authors of the IPCC report. This claim itself showed a serious disregard for science and the fair use of statistics. 52 scientists wrote the IPCC report, yes, but they were explicitly summarizing the work of more than 2,000 scientists who contributed research.
But let's say that 69 of Inhofe's scientists were legit. Does that mean anthropogenic climate change is little more than a hunch? No. First, we would have to see what exactly their objections were. And, secondly, it's normal and acceptable for there to be some disagreement among scientists. Doubts and questions lead to research, and more research leads to a better understanding of the problem at hand. No one claims that we know everything to know about climate change. But we do know that we're playing an important role in causing it, and that it will likely lead to very bad outcomes.
We also know that acting to slow climate change won't break the world's economy—on the contrary. And it will also reduce other forms of pollution, including soot, that have been linked to serious health problems and lower IQs. a record high 41 percent believe risks are exaggerated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)