[Ache]

China has witnessed growing public anger over pollution caused by industrial development

China's environment ministry appears to have acknowledged the existence of so-called "cancer villages" after years of public speculation about the impact of pollution in certain areas.

For years campaigners have said cancer rates in some villages near factories and polluted waterways have shot up.

But the term "cancer village" has no technical definition and the ministry's report did not elaborate on it.

There have been many calls for China to be more transparent on pollution.

The latest report from the environment ministry is entitled "Guard against and control risks presented by chemicals to the environment during the 12th Five-Year period (2011-2015)".

It says that the widespread production and consumption of harmful chemicals forbidden in many developed nations are still found in China.

"The toxic chemicals have caused many environmental emergencies linked to water and air pollution," it said.

The report goes on to acknowledge that such chemicals could pose a long-term risk to human health, making a direct link to the so-called "cancer villages".

"There are even some serious cases of health and social problems like the emergence of cancer villages in individual regions," it said.

Beijing smog
The BBC's Martin Patience in Beijing says that as China has experienced rapid development, stories about so-called cancer villages have become more frequent.

And China has witnessed growing public anger over air pollution and industrial waste caused by industrial development.

Media coverage of conditions in these so-called "cancer villages" has been widespread. In 2009, one Chinese journalist published a map identifying dozens of apparently affected villages.

In 2007 the BBC visited the small hamlet of Shangba in southern China where one scientist was studying the cause and effects of pollution on the village.

He found high levels of poisonous heavy metals in the water and believed there was a direct connection between incidences of cancer and mining in the area.

Until now, there has been little comment from the government on such allegations.

Environmental lawyer Wang Canfa, who runs a pollution aid centre in Beijing, told the AFP news agency that it was the first time the "cancer village" phrase had appeared in a ministry document.

Last month - Beijing - and several other cities - were blanketed in smog that soared past levels considered hazardous by the World Health Organisation.

The choking pollution provoked a public outcry and led to a highly charged debate about the costs of the country's rapid economic development, our correspondent says.

This is what we look forward to if the right wing gets its way on environmental regulation..this is what a deregulated world looks like. have fun buying bottled air.

[Plantagenet]

China has witnessed growing public anger over pollution caused by industrial development

China's environment ministry appears to have acknowledged the existence of so-called "cancer villages" after years of public speculation about the impact of pollution in certain areas.

This is what we look forward to ..this is what a deregulated world looks like.

You cannot be real if you imagine that China's problem is that it is "deregulated." Try googling "Communist Party China".

[yeahbut]

This is what we look forward to ..this is what a deregulated world looks like.

You cannot be real if you imagine that China's problem is that it is "deregulated." Try googling "Communist Party China".

Heh, yes indeed. However, not knowing much about environmental regs in China, I would be interested to know if the appalling pollution there has occurred in the absence of significant environmental regulation, or if China has strict environmental laws which are ignored or circumvented by corruption.

FWIW, my take on the environmental degradation and pollution in China, and other developing world manufacturing centres, is that the 'developed' world is complicit in them.

We congratulate ourselves on the way we have cleaned up from the bad old days when the smog was choking in LA, when rivers 'caught fire', when acid rain damaged forests and lakes across Europe and the US. And of course, enormous changes have indeed been made to the standards required of industry in the developed world. Emissions must be cleaner, penalties are far harsher etc.

Another big change, however, has been the movement of some of our filthiest industrial practices offshore. Many Western companies have chosen to base their production in countries where costs are much lower- and certainly a significant part of that lower cost is the absence of strict environmental standards. Consumers worldwide have voted with their wallets, choosing the products that were made under these environmentally lax conditions(not to mention horrific working conditions, safety, hours, human rights etc) over those produced at home, because of that lower price.

Western govts failed to demand decent standards of the countries they did business with, and consumers failed to support businesses that had decent standards in their own countries. That's total complicity, IMO. To me, it looks like we outsourced our pollution to the developing world and then condemned those countries for being so dirty

[Shaved Monkey]

Capitalism loves slavery

[Pretorian]

Capitalism loves slavery

Capitalism despises slavery. That's the only reason why slavery was abolished btw. Capitalism is all about renting people ( self-owned slaves ). Socialism and Communism however, do love slavery. Soviet Union for example officially had slaves until 1970-71 or so.

[Lore]

Praetorian is right, capitalism abhors slavery. It's simply not economical. A slave entails the complete ownership and responsibility for the individual. While with capitalism, employing someone for cheap crappy wages means they're on their own. Furthermore, you can cut them loose anytime.

[furrybill]

This is what we look forward to ..this is what a deregulated world looks like.

You cannot be real if you imagine that China's problem is that it is "deregulated." Try googling "Communist Party China".

Heh, yes indeed. However, not knowing much about environmental regs in China, I would be interested to know if the appalling pollution there has occurred in the absence of significant environmental regulation, or if China has strict environmental laws which are ignored or circumvented by corruption.

FWIW, my take on the environmental degradation and pollution in China, and other developing world manufacturing centres, is that the 'developed' world is complicit in them.

We congratulate ourselves on the way we have cleaned up from the bad old days when the smog was choking in LA, when rivers 'caught fire', when acid rain damaged forests and lakes across Europe and the US. And of course, enormous changes have indeed been made to the standards required of industry in the developed world. Emissions must be cleaner, penalties are far harsher etc.

Another big change, however, has been the movement of some of our filthiest industrial practices offshore. Many Western companies have chosen to base their production in countries where costs are much lower- and certainly a significant part of that lower cost is the absence of strict environmental standards. Consumers worldwide have voted with their wallets, choosing the products that were made under these environmentally lax conditions(not to mention horrific working conditions, safety, hours, human rights etc) over those produced at home, because of that lower price.

Western govts failed to demand decent standards of the countries they did business with, and consumers failed to support businesses that had decent standards in their own countries. That's total complicity, IMO. To me, it looks like we outsourced our pollution to the developing world and then condemned those countries for being so dirty

According to my Chinese girlfriend it's a combination of lack of regulation and corruption, emphasis on the corruption. In and of itself it won't cause the Chinese people to revolt against the Party but all that pollution is another straw on the camel's back.

As for complicity I agree with you 100% yb - we insist on low prices at WalMart but turn our heads to the consequences. We talk about American labor being uncompetitive due to unions but totally ignore the standard of living in countries with "affordable" wages. We moan about the EPA "interfering" with business and then talk about cancer villages.

"You get what you pay for" is and always will be true. Americans have lost sight of this simplest of ideas and this civilization will be the victim of their ignorance.

[Pretorian]

we insist on low prices at WalMart but turn our heads to the consequences.

Nobody insists on any prices. We just won't buy at high prices if low prices are available. Seems reasonable to me.

We talk about American labor being uncompetitive due to unions but totally ignore the standard of living in countries with "affordable" wages.

The standard of living in countries with " affordable" wages grew immensely in the last 10-15 years, at the cost of the first-worlders. Many salaries, incomes and property values in the third world grew 10, 15, 20, 25 times and more. Cancer villages? That is a consequence to whom exactly?

[SeaGypsy]

I have family members working at the Hanjin floating dry dock in Subic Bay Philippines, tradesmen blaster painters making 550 peso ($12) for a 12 hour day in conditions which kill about 11 workers directly a year (out of about 16,000). When someone dies their family get 20,000 peso ($500). Korea and China are now outsourcing to countries like Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia. China is becoming a sought after job market.

[Pretorian]

So? That is almost $300 per month and I'm sure they get other perks you don't want to mention for drama's sake, like free food and board, bonuses, etc. I sincerely doubt their labor was worth more than $30-40 a month 15 years ago. The only country now where labor is still cheap and undervalued is Bangladesh imo.

[ralfy]

So? That is almost $300 per month and I'm sure they get other perks you don't want to mention for drama's sake, like free food and board, bonuses, etc. I sincerely doubt their labor was worth more than $30-40 a month 15 years ago. The only country now where labor is still cheap and undervalued is Bangladesh imo.

I think there's no free food and board, and if it's per diem, probably no bonuses except for working during holidays. In other parts of the country, the ave. wage is half of that.

To make matters worse, from what I know around 60 pct of the world's population make only around two dollars daily.

[SeaGypsy]

Yep, free lunches were made illegal by the new administration (not kidding), free lodging, nope, an hour or 2 commute by bus is the norm. Gasoline is priced the same as the rest of SE Asia about $1.20- $1.50 a liter, electricity is the most expensive in Asia at about 20 cents per kwh. Basically you work your tail off almost all your waking hours to pay the bills. The new Asian century.

[Pretorian]

To make matters worse, from what I know around 60 pct of the world's population make only around two dollars daily.

( Sigh ) I wish. That is a very old data you have there

[Pretorian]

Yep, free lunches were made illegal by the new administration (not kidding), free lodging, nope, an hour or 2 commute by bus is the norm. Gasoline is priced the same as the rest of SE Asia about $1.20- $1.50 a liter, electricity is the most expensive in Asia at about 20 cents per kwh. Basically you work your tail off almost all your waking hours to pay the bills. The new Asian century.

Seagypsy, it's sufficient to say that a 500 ft condo in the center of Manila can fetch $USD 80-200 000 easily. Dice it or slice it, people do make a shitload more than they used to.

[dinopello]

Cancer village, how quaint. Just another example of a population control mechanismat work. We only get to choose from the left-hand list, nature still chooses from the right.

Now, if this current modest 1.3% per year could continue, the world population would grow to a density of one person per square meter on the dry land surface of the earth in just 780 years, and the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in just 2400 years. Well, we can smile at those, we know they couldn't happen. This one make for a cute cartoon; the caption says, “Excuse me sir, but I am prepared to make you a rather attractive offer for your square.”

There's a very profound lesson in that cartoon. The lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen. Now, we can debate whether we like zero population growth or don't like it, it’s going to happen. Whether we debate it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s absolutely certain. People could never live at that density on the dry land surface of the earth. Therefore, today’s high birth rates will drop; today’s low death rates will rise till they have exactly the same numerical value. That will certainly be in a time short compared to 780 years. So maybe you're wondering then, what options are available if we wanted to address the problem.

In the left hand column, I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of growth of population and in so doing, make the problem worse. Just look at the list. Everything in the list is as sacred as motherhood. There's immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation. These are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate and that’s very important to me, if it’s my death they’re lowering. But then I’ve got to realise that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse.

There’s peace, law and order; scientific agriculture has lowered the death rate due to famine—that just makes the population problem worse. It’s widely reported that the 55 mph speed limit saved thousands of lives—that just makes the population problem worse. Clean air makes it worse.

Now, in this column are some of the things we should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth of population and in so doing, help solve the population problem. Well, there’s abstention, contraception, abortion, small families, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents. Now, smoking clearly raises the death rate; well, that helps solve the problem.

Remember our conclusion from the cartoon of one person per square meter; we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen. Let’s state that conclusion in other terms and say it’s obvious nature is going to choose from the right hand list and we don't have to do anything—except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right hand list. Or we can exercise the one option that’s open to us, and that option is to choose first from the right hand list. We gotta find something here we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease? (audience laughter)

We now have the capability of incredible war; would you like more murder, more famine, more accidents? Well, here we can see the human dilemma—everything we regard as good makes the population problem worse, everything we regard as bad helps solve the problem. There is a dilemma if ever there was one.

The one remaining question is education: does it go in the left hand column or the right hand column? I’d have to say thus far in this country it’s been in the left hand column—it's done very little to reduce ignorance of the problem.

[ralfy]

To make matters worse, from what I know around 60 pct of the world's population make only around two dollars daily.

( Sigh ) I wish. That is a very old data you have there

According to 2008 reports from the WB and the UN almost 50 earning less than $2.50 a day:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats

but I think it is around 60 pct now because of high food and oil prices and unemployment.

Perhaps by "very old data" you mean the situation is even worse?

In terms of minimum wage, the situation is even worse: more than 80 pct earn less than $10 a day.

The sources and links to various reports are given at the bottom of the page.

[ralfy]

Seagypsy, it's sufficient to say that a 500 ft condo in the center of Manila can fetch $USD 80-200 000 easily. Dice it or slice it, people do make a shitload more than they used to.

Given the latest income and expenditure surveys, I think only around 1 to 5 pct of families (around five members per family) earn $3000 a month or more. The top 10 pct makes half of that, and the rest even lower. That might explain the significant vacancy rates and block purchases of units to be resold or to be rented out to expats.

Based on a poverty threshold of around $1.25 a day, "only" around 40 pct of the population are poor. Increase the threshold to $10 a day, and the poverty rate will rise, similar to that of the global average given the same threshold.

[SeaGypsy]

http://www.sulit.com.ph/index.php/class ... ndo+makati

Makati is the most upmarket part of Manila. There are condos for 1.5 million peso, about $37k up, with heaps for under $80k. It's a toxic dangerous dive of a place by most modern city standards, but it's glamour+++ to Pinoy. I get seriously ill within days there from the smog:

[Pretorian]

http://www.sulit.com.ph/index.php/classifieds+directory/q/cheap+condo+makati

Makati is the most upmarket part of Manila. There are condos for 1.5 million peso, about $37k up, with heaps for under $80k. It's a toxic dangerous dive of a place by most modern city standards, but it's glamour+++ to Pinoy. I get seriously ill within days there from the smog:

I looked at new apartments in downtown, not sure about the name of the district. But it's a hellhole all right no dispute there. Do poor people really live better in Manila than in some scrawny lands 1000 km down south?

[Pretorian]

Seagypsy, it's sufficient to say that a 500 ft condo in the center of Manila can fetch $USD 80-200 000 easily. Dice it or slice it, people do make a shitload more than they used to.

Given the latest income and expenditure surveys, I think only around 1 to 5 pct of families (around five members per family) earn $3000 a month or more. The top 10 pct makes half of that, and the rest even lower. That might explain the significant vacancy rates and block purchases of units to be resold or to be rented out to expats.

Based on a poverty threshold of around $1.25 a day, "only" around 40 pct of the population are poor. Increase the threshold to $10 a day, and the poverty rate will rise, similar to that of the global average given the same threshold.

$10 a day per member of a family is not poor by any means. Surely not in Phily. And $1.25 is sufficient to rub into the gums about 20-23 pounds of cooked rice per day, doesn't strike me as a starvation diet if you ask me.