Ten years ago, the world was worried that China would not be able to feed itself in the new millenium.
Now that the growing giant has defied all predictions and China can largely feed itself, there are new headaches.
Two of Washington's leading environmental think tanks warned recently that the economic boom in the emerging industrial giants of China and India could present one of the world's gravest threats yet to the environment.
The two countries together have 2.5 billion people, or nearly 40 percent of the world's population of 6.5 billion.
China now eats up just under one-third of the world's rice, over one-quarter of the world's steel and nearly half of its cement, the Worldwatch Institute says in its "2006 State of the World" report released on Wednesday.
The Earth simply cannot supply these countries' rising demands for energy, food, and raw materials, which are already having "ripple effects worldwide," Worldwatch president Christopher Flavin said.
Lester Brown, author of the 1995 book Who will feed China?, president of the Earth Policy Institute and founder of World-watch, agrees.
"Though [China] doesn't admit it yet, the US model won't work for China. And if it does not work for China, it will not work for India," Brown said at the release of his new book, Plan B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble.
The use of oil has doubled in India since 1992, while China went from near self-sufficiency in the mid-1990s to becoming the world's second largest importer in 2004, the Worldwatch report says.
Prices worldwide have soared as India and China scooped up shares in oil companies around the world.
Some critics might find the worries of these US environmentalists hypocritical, since the US is still the greatest burner of oil, using 25 percent of global annual supplies and producing 25 percent of carbon emissions.
The US also has the largest ecological footprint. The average US citizen requires about 9.7 hectares to provide consumable resources and space for waste, an amount that is 205 percent of what the country can provide within its borders.
That figure is only 1.6 hectares for the average Chinese person, or 201 per cent of the country's capacity, and 0.8 hectares for the average Indian, or 210 per cent of the country's capacity.
On the positive side, Worldwatch pointed out that both India and China have ambitious programs to use renewable energies.
China's congress passed an "ambitious" renewable energy law that comes into force this month. The country has been a pioneer in the use of small wind turbines, hydro-generators and biogas plants, the institute said.
India now has the world's fourth largest wind power industry and aims to raise its share of renewable energies to 20 to 25 percent of power generation, according to Worldwatch.
Still, Siva Yam, president of the US-China Chamber of Commerce in Chicago, sees one major hindrance for sustainable development in Asia.
"The world is getting smaller and it's a very competitive market," Yam said. "Paying more attention to the environment would disadvantage China against its competitors, for example India."
"China already has extensive laws protecting the environment, the problem lies in enforcing regulations. Local authorities just don't enforce them," he added.
The World Wildlife Fund's director for climate change, Hans Verolme, however supports the view that China is on the right track.
"Both nations are signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, but as developing nations they are exempted from cutting their emissions. However, China has already taken voluntary measures which have had a very positive impact," Verholme said.
Referring to last year's gathering on global warming in Canada, Verholme said: "What we saw in Montreal now was that while China came forward with measures it has taken to improve environmental sustainability, the US did not."
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS