World Trade Organization & Chinese Environment Policy

China is the biggest developing country which also has the largest population in the world. By analyzing the change of China's environmental policy after its entry into WTO, the opportunities and challenges of third world countries for the environment and trade development through the application of the WTO can be understood as well.

With the entry into the WTO, China has to follow these WTO-rules: reduction of WTO incompatible subsidies especially in the energy, textile and agricultural sector and opening of the domestic markets. As a consequence, there could be negative effects on employment such as in the agricultural sector. However, entering the WTO China also receives the right to use the trade conflict settlement mechanisms of the organization including environment related cases as other developing countries did before. Implementing the WTO-rules could also bring about economic and environmental benefits for China.

One central question about China's WTO entry is what are the possible environment benefits? Due to the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment, the greatest environmental benefits of trade liberalization, for example the removing of trade and restrictions and distortions are in energy, fisheries, forestry, non-ferrous metals, textile, clothes and leather.

In China, agriculture, energy and textile are the most important economic sectors. According to population statistics, 75% of the Chinese population lives in rural areas. Farms are encouraged to increase production, sediment damage, increased nutrient loadings in waterways, etc. Conversely, when farm incomes are taxed by artificially lowering food prices to subsidize consumers, farmers need to produce more food (leading to environmental problems), but they aren't paid as much because the government is subsidizing the consumers, not the farmers. (Oberheitmann, 2001, p.42) When farmers have to produce more, they are not able to take as much time to care for their plants and animals because they are producing so much. Instead, they use harmful chemicals on their plants, inject all of their animals with antibiotics (which can cause the farmers and consumers to become immune to antibiotics), and the food quality suffers. When farmers are taxed for producing more products, they don't have the money they need to farm organically. Thus, the reform of the agricultural sector is a difficult task. Subsidies have to be reduced only where GATT-incompatibilities exist or where they are appropriate, in order to have positive implications for economic welfare.

Energy consumption in China has increased significantly since the last 20 years. Within the developing countries, the countries of the Asia Pacific region consume approximately 60% of total world energy demand among all developing countries, accounting for the bulk of demand increase in recent years. According to IEA data, with 3.1 billon tons of CO2-emissions from fuel combustion in 1997, after the USA, China is the second largest emitter in the world. (Oberheitmann, 2001, p.43) The Chinese government subsidizes energy costs for the Chinese citizens. These are the examples for subsidies of energy:

The Chinese government should remove the subsidies and create an "energy tax" as a "distinctive incentive" for citizens to use energy. It is better for the environment to use less energy. This may help in the development of "clean" energies because there is no incentive to use coal, gasoline, and CO2 emitting energies. Fortunately, China is taking measures to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, suspended particulate matter, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, light hydrocarbons, organic and inorganic aerosols, as well as toxins produced in certain combustion methods, i.e. Greenhouse gases. They should continue with this work.

In 1997, the exports of articles of apparel and clothing made 17.4% of total Chinese exports. (Oberheitmann, 2001, p.46). It must be noted that these are final products, not the raw materials to make clothing. China has become the biggest exporter of clothing and the second biggest exporter of textiles in the world. Because China has such a huge impact on the clothing and textile global market, it is hard for other countries to compete. To limit the effect of Chinese textiles in the marketplace, there have been restraining measures including high tariffs, import licensing requirements, import prohibitions, and direct subsidies on some production inputs. To improve the quality of clothing and the quality of production for the clothing, there needs to be less waste dumping and other environmental restrictions placed on the clothing and textile makers.

Is pollution inevitable for developing and industrial countries? "This constellation is a dilemma for China and other developing countries as they can not fulfill the standards with existing technology, but at the same time are losing export revenues that would enable them to invest in environmentally friendly technologies and management". (Oberheitmann, 2001, p.33)

Countries like the US and the UK also polluted the environment through their own industrialization years ago. There are significant parallels between industrialized and developed countries while they were in their industrialization stages and China now. They didn't have the awareness of the pollution or the technologies to stop the pollution. Now that we have better technologies to be more environmentally friendly, why are these developing countries like China still struggling? The main question is how we change it.


References:
Websites:
http://www.riel.whu.edu.cn/article.asp?id=25056
http://news.qq.com/a/20090307/001708.htm xinhua
http://www.sc.gov.cn/zt_sczt/wto/hyyx/200701/t20070119_172530.shtml

Academic publications:
WTO机制下的中国对外贸易与环境保护 印卫东 徐荟华
WTO with Sustained Development Strategy of China 彭璧玉
PERSPECTIVES OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENT 2002 (2)
Environmental impacts of China's WTO-accession Haakon Vennemoa, Kristin Aunanb, Jianwu Hec, Tao Hud, Shantong Lic and Kristin Rypd3alb

The Green Ads Analysis---Toyota Commercial

The centerpiece commercial features a kind of mud-hut Prius being assembled out of twigs, earth and grass by a group of rugged campers. Against a moody mountain backdrop, the Prius slowly disintegrates back into the land, while an announcer says, "Can a car company grow in harmony with the environment? Why not? At Toyota, we're not only working toward cars with zero emissions. We're also striving for zero waste in everything else we do."

The image in this commercial is combined with huge grass field, blue sky, rolling hills ,soft sunshine and a flowing stream. Every single item inside of this commercial seems really natural and even somehow perfect, which arouses the audience's desire for such ideal environment. Not only are the aesthetics fully revealed, it also reflects a distinct theme which is humans should improve their conscious to protect the environment.

In the advertisement, several workers use very natural material and methods to assemble a car. The procedure of producing a car is completely environmentally friendly since every raw material is coming from nature and the cars can be back to the soil well once the car is out of use by people. Modern machines and the automatic producing process are replaced by wood and mud as well as human labour. There is no pollution, no noise, even no conflicts in this piece of commercial. Obviously, the theme it trying to convey is industry production should be in harmony with nature.

While take a careful look, you will find the producer of this commercial tends to spin around the car in order to highlight the car rather than taking a long shot with mountains or river in.
On the surface, this ad really satisfies customer's hope for the environment thus it can capture their attention well. However, a new Toyota recall was announced recently, affecting some 2.3 million vehicles, just months after a separate Toyota recall that affected nearly 4 million cars. These shocking numbers used to be appeared in front pages of different newspapers all over the world. Reuters reports that the newest Toyota recall relates to a "dangerous acceleration" issue with Toyota cars and trucks. Though potential issues are rare, Toyota says they're more likely to occur after wear and tear on the gas pedal.

Even though this event have already been past a certain period, Toyota's reputation becomes no more that trustworthy among consumers. To the green crowd, though, Toyota is a turncoat. Their cries are reaching a wider audience as oil soars toward $100 a barrel and gas prices top $3 a gallon. Several environmental groups have launched a "How Green Is Toyota?" publicity blitz, which includes a letter-writing campaign they say has clogged the inbox of Toyota's top U.S. exec with more than 100,000 e-mails. In Detroit last month, eco-warriors stormed a Toyota dealership and draped it with a banner showing flag-wrapped coffins beside the slogan "Driving War and Warming." "Is Toyota really committed to being green, or are they just green scamming?" asks Rob Perks of the Natural Resources Defense Council. To defend its green street cred, Toyota last week rolled out its most extensive corporate-image ad campaign ever.

In terms of commercial itself, this ad lasts 34 seconds but only 3 seconds is distributed to the real car. The other time is used to describing the nice field and other natural scenery. Actually, the advertiser seems like avoid talking the reality but try to emphasize nice fantasy of nature. In the commercial, cars are made of sticks and mud. When the car is run down, it can go back to soil and become a part of nature again. Nevertheless, cars can't disappear from nature. They are made of metal and function by using gas which would definitely produce polluted emission to our environment. Besides, the tittle of this commercial it says " The worlds most environmentally friendly car" which sounds exaggerate and absolute to consumers. The language in ad has also been overstated. It's a common sense that cars can not reach the level of zero emission and zero waste.

The ads might already be backfiring. This week at the Los Angeles Auto Show, eco-activists from Freedom From Oil tell NEWSWEEK they are planning to target Toyota by playing off the ads' "Why not?" slogan. With banners strung from the L.A. Convention Center or waved in a Toyota press conference, the protesters say they will ask the automaker "Why not?" drop the lawsuit against California's global-warming law. Toyota's sharpest Congressional critic, Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, also is working the slogan into his broadsides. "They're saying they can't meet the 35mpg standard by 2020," Markey says, "and the American people are asking Toyota, 'Why not?' " Like so many of Toyota's critics these days, Markey is also a customer: He drives a Camry hybrid. But as friends turn into foes, Toyota is discovering it isn't easy being green while going for the green.

New Pasture Rules Issued for Organic Dairy Producers

I have to admit that I lost my interest in eating all kinds of meat after learned Suda’s class which mentioned the meat industry of America. Sometimes I even doubt food although they just have little relation to animals such as egg and milk. I have been a vegetarian since I came to American which means any potential food problems will definitely far away from me. However, my body warns me and I also feel not well sometimes after I totally give up eating meat for more than two months. Frankly speaking, I care about the balance of my diet very much as I know it’s the main energy source of my body. In china, I have never confronted food problems as long as they are home cooking. Fortunately, with the increasing knowledge of American food industry, I find only organic food could solve all the problems which I concerned about. As we all know, organic food is really expensive and not every American could afford it, but I think it has a large space for developing.

When you read until here, it still seems has nothing to do with our topic which is environmental news analysis. Actually I just want to figure out why I pick the following news named “New Pasture Rules Issued for Organic Dairy Producers”. The headline of this news clearly gives me the general idea of the news and I clicked it without any hesitation. For this extent, I think news headline should be easy to understand and somehow briefly summarize the whole news.
The structure about this piece of news is also organized. First, the author gives introduction about the regulations for organic dairy producers. Then, he quotes the words said by Miles V. McEvoy who is the deputy administrator of the National Organic Program to illustrate the essentiality of carrying on the new pasture rules. The usage of attribution also increases the credibility of the article. In the following paragraphs, the author makes a contrast between the old regulations and the new regulations for organic dairy producers in order to emphasize that new rules tend to be more specific and restrict. For example, the rules say that animals must get at least 30 percent of their food from pasture during the grazing season. Plus, the author also points out how the new rules are applied into practice. He wrote that Mr. McEvoy said the rules would be enforced by organic certifiers who will be required to make at least one inspection a year. After that, the writer takes Stonyfield Farm and Aurora Organic Dairy these two typical organic diary producers as examples to explain that many producers are willing to follow the new rules and are going to make significant changes in the dairy’s operations. At the end of article, the author reveals the new rules also apply to cattle raised for beef to make sure beef cattle are fed on qualified diet.

This news was represented with clear formatting, only words and a picture, but conveys strong information. I was reminded that news with good structure article can still function well even without good pictures or vedios.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/business/13organic.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss