China has released a shocking admission that at least 3.3 million hectares of farmland is now so polluted that it is effectively dead for purposes of growing crops. To put that into perspective, it is an area the size of Belgium. It is the latest statistical insight into the costs of the continued industrial output that reaches roughly 10 percent a year. That is two percent of China’s arable land and there is a concern about whether the per capita land allocation for food production has fallen below the communist regime’s own “red line” calculation. The country now has 135 million hectares of arable land, which translates to about 1.52 mu, or about a quarter of an acre, per capita. The world average is half of an acre, or 3.38 mu per capita.
The surprising disclosure of the previously classified information cam win comments at a press conference in Beijing, Vice Minister of Land and Resources Wang Shiyuan. The figure is a result of a five-year, $1 billion soil pollution survey started in 2006. Heavy metals are responsible for a large amount of the contamination.
Other figures are equally staggering. In the most populous province, Guangdong, a study found excessive levels of toxic cadmium in more than 40 percent of rice on the market. In addition, about 28,000 rivers have vanished since 1990 with a comparable loss of drinking water to industrial pollution and over-use.
China clearly see the emerging crisis but it continues to crackdown on environmentalists and activists protesting pollution and corruption tied to local officials.
Notably, the U.S. has also seen a loss of millions of acres of farmland in recent years.
If the agency doesn’t have teeth it can’t or won’t bite the Capitalist in pursuit of the other green stuff, polluting and cheating as they go along. Communist Capitalists are no different than some unscrupulous Capitalists here in this country, they do not care who they hurt, they do not have a conscience. If these corporations pollute or in other ways ruin this country, they can move away. Of course the Communist Capitalists will stay in China and live in posh homes with excellent air filtration systems while the general population breath the air outside wearing those cute masks and eat cadmium laced rice. I hope that rice doesn’t make it to Walmart.
davidm2575 certainly has a strange argument. Let’s see. Before EPA there were unregulated dioxins, PCBs, and the ever famous Cuyahoga River fire to name but a few. Hooker Chemical and its bizarrely named Love Canal are also products of pre EPA. The list would be along one and to say business is the responsible party is ludicrous! Do you think business paid for the cleanup of these chemicals and Superfund sites? No. The taxpayer paid for their cleanup, IBM has been fighting the cleanup of PCBs fro the Hudson River for decades. Amazing to think that corporations are responsible for clean air and water. Nothing could be further from the truth, or reality. I hate ot be rude, but saying that businesses would be t the forefront of environmental improvements without government intervention is disingenuous at best..
The Clean Air Act the Clean Water Act and other EPA initiatives have greatly improved air and water while corporations have fought those regulations as harming profits. Forget people. Profits rule,
This is from the EPA: After the Clean Air Act’s first 20 years, in 1990, it prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths, and almost 700,000 cases of chronic bronchitis were avoided. Over the last 20 years, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by more than 41 percent, while the Gross Domestic Product has increased by more than 64 percent. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/40th.html
If business was in control, those deaths would simply be the collateral damage of free-market profits, I could go on, but you should get the point. I don’t know what you are smoking David, but please put the pipe down and come back to reality…..
da bankster wrote: “If business was in control, those deaths would simply be the collateral damage of free-market profits, I could go on, but you should get the point. I don’t know what you are smoking David, but please put the pipe down and come back to reality…..”
Excuse me, Mr. Bankster, sir, but I never argued that government should not police corporations on environmental issues. I never argued against environmental regulations. I am a proud environmentalist and a member of several environmental groups. I contribute money to environmental causes. I even taught a class on Environmental Science at the University of South Florida. I believe in environmental laws and regulations. I have even done consulting work in regards to Environmental Impact Assessments to assess the impact of corporation activity on the environment.
In regards to the EPA, surely you must realize that many environmentalists have problems with our EPA. You might consider this letter from an environmentalist who worked for the EPA for 20 years:
http://www.greens.org/s-r/078/07-48.html
David, Orwell could not have come up w/ a better name than those Chinese.
david,
it isn’t government control of the corporations that is the problem in china. It is the complete lack of control or regulations over those corporations that allow them to completely destroy the environment. Corporations in China are making billions paying low wages and ruining the environment.
rafflaw wrote: “it isn’t government control of the corporations that is the problem in china. It is the complete lack of control or regulations over those corporations that allow them to completely destroy the environment.”
Think of it this way. When the government controls corporations, then government heads the corporations. The interests of the corporations become the interests of the state. There are no checks and balances like we have here by keeping the government and the corporations more separate.
I have read from Chinese officials that some of their environmental laws are actually more strict than the United States. The problem is that most of that is just for show and the culture regularly allows paying fees to circumvent the law. Clearly the government has more interest in production than in the environmental laws it creates. It is like asking the CEO of a company to produce environmental laws and then police himself. How good is that going to work?
There was a situation a few years back where six environmental protection officers were removed from their post (they really don’t fire people over there like we do here… people are assigned jobs… everybody basically works for government in a sense because it is communism…). They were removed because they performed 3 inspections within 20 days. The government said they were damaging efforts to attract investment. So the regulations are there, the people are there to enforce them, but there is no will power to be serious about it because the CEO’s of the companies are replaced by government control.
Another problem is that the courts refuse to even hear about half the environmental law suits that are brought. The courts say this is done for “social stability.”
So even if you have regulations, the problem is that the government is in control of the means of production, so their interests now are more like the CEO of the company. Our system works better because the CEO can focus on what he is trying to do, and the government can be like the policeman who says, “you can do all this, but don’t do this because it hurts the environment and the people.” If the sole interest of government is to be a policeman of corporations rather than a partner with them, it just works better.
Dredd, There are many misconceptions about red/blue states. Having lived in both, I am often dismayed by those misconceptions. Here’s one that will surprise most of the blue state loyalists.
In August of 2012 The Chronicle of Philanthropy studied all 50 states and ranked them according to charitable generosity. The entire list is available on their website. But, here are the top and bottom 7:
1 Utah
2 Ms.
3 Alabama
4 Tn.
5 SC
6 Idaho
7 Arkansas
44 Wi
45 Ct.
46 RI
47 Ma.
48 NJ
49 Maine
50 NH
Your talking right and left, by todays standards J.F.K. and H.S.T. were farther to the right than most conservatives today. So who’s going off the deep end.
Dredd,
You wanna take a look at this….http://www.vancouverobserver.com they don’t really like the issues with the tar sands project….. Multiple story’s in depth coverage….
China has no EPA.
Ours is dying or dead (The Peak of The Oil Lies – 7).
Dredd wrote: “China has no EPA.”
Are you being sarcastic?
Originally founded as the National Environmental Protection Agency, China’s EPA is now called the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP). They are responsible for regulations regarding water quality, ambient air quality, solid waste, soil, noise, and radioactivity.
davidm2575 1, January 3, 2014 at 10:43 am
Dredd wrote: “Bad regulations generate bad results, good regulations generate good results.”
You really need to think further back to WHY regulations are bad or good …
===========================
Like I said, absurd at best.
You expect to change the meaning of good and bad with a simple non-sequitur?
“Keep things as simple as possible, but no simpler.” – A. Einstein
He was no simpleton as you still struggle to be.
Bad environmental regulations are bad for the environment and good environmental regulations are good for the environment.
“Shake the zombie within.” – TGWSYHF2575 (The guy who sent you here from 2575)
Dredd, exactly which regulations of China’s EPA are you saying are bad and to be blamed for the problems?
itchinBayDog 1, January 3, 2014 at 10:35 am
Better dead than red.
================
That is what Blue Dogs say about red states.
Better dead than red.
nick spinelli 1, January 3, 2014 at 9:46 am
A Republican created the EPA …
============================
Correct.
That was before that party died, and came back as zombies (“Thank you Cheezus.”).
Nixon signed a presidential order creating the EPA in 1970.
After that, another republican, Bush I, started the war on global warming:
(New Yorker). Like I say, then the party died and the right-wingnut ideology of davidm2575 types was sent back from the year 2575 but they missed their target year (Math is science, so they reject it).
They have been confusing folks ever since.
David, I am a hardcore independent. “Bbbbbad, bbbbbbad, bad to the bone” George Thorogood Independent.
davidm2575 1, January 3, 2014 at 9:27 am
Isn’t it fascinating how the governments like China that advocate complete government control of corporations end up with the worst environmental policies? Examples like this should give us serious pause to consider the power of a governmental system like ours that has traditionally focused upon individual freedoms and limited government control. Individuals seeing an environmental problem are much more responsive than a government bureaucracy controlling the means of production. We should reject communism and socialism and embrace more Republican type policies.
=================================
An absurd analysis, to be kind about it.
Bad regulations generate bad results, good regulations generate good results.
How is your arithmetic?
Dredd wrote: “Bad regulations generate bad results, good regulations generate good results.”
You really need to think further back to WHY regulations are bad or good. If the government is in charge of the means of production, how good a job do you think they will do in creating laws to police themselves in regards to environmentally destructive shortcuts?
In contrast, a system like we have where you have corporations focused on the means of production, and citizens outside that corporation possibly perceiving environmental problems, and then a government assigned the task of hearing both parties and developing laws to curb harmful activity… well, this is the kind of system that will do a better job of balancing both economic growth and environmental protections.
There is no truth to the rumor that a Chinese hectare is an irascible rabbit.
A Republican created the EPA. Oh, and a Republican signed the ADA.
Nick wrote: “A Republican created the EPA. Oh, and a Republican signed the ADA.”
Nick, you amaze me with some of the facts you come up with. Are you sure you are a Democrat? You certainly are an honest Democrat, I grant you that.
Maybe the Canadians can teach them a thing or two…..
So who is it who wants to get rid of the EPA? Our future under unbridled Capitalism?
Isn’t it fascinating how the governments like China that advocate complete government control of corporations end up with the worst environmental policies? Examples like this should give us serious pause to consider the power of a governmental system like ours that has traditionally focused upon individual freedoms and limited government control. Individuals seeing an environmental problem are much more responsive than a government bureaucracy controlling the means of production. We should reject communism and socialism and embrace more Republican type policies.
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.