Slashdot Mirror


China Considering Cuts In Rare-Earth Metal Exports

SillySnake sends in a report from the Telegraph on draft plans in China to restrict exports of rare earths. "Beijing is drawing up plans to prohibit or restrict exports of rare earth metals that are produced only in China and play a vital role in cutting edge technology, from hybrid cars and catalytic converters, to superconductors, and precision-guided weapons. A draft report by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium. Other metals such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum will be restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year, far below global needs."

45 of 456 comments (clear)

  1. The new "oil" by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just what the world economy needs. A single-country "cartel" that will cause prices to greatly rise. This should be interesting to watch.

    I guess rare-earth metals are the new "oil".

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:The new "oil" by xerxesVII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Muslims?

      --
      "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
    2. Re:The new "oil" by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uuum, what have the Chinese nationals to do with their asshole government? They are not their government. It's like punishing you for the murderings by the US Army in in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't you feel unfairly treated?

      Perhaps they even go to American schools to *avoid* "their" government.

      It's people with your mindset that create hatred against a whole nation for the fault of a few.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:The new "oil" by srealm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is typical protectionist crap. Sorry, but you may be right about businesses thinking short term, but if America starts banning foreign nationals from its schools, and slapping tariffs on foreign imports, how does that make America any better than China?

      And for the record, America DOES still slap tariffs on foreign imports into this country. Usually at the behest of the powerful lobbies. Ever look at things like sugar and wheat imports? Both have either rather large tariffs, or just subsidies for the domestic industry. Why? Because the industry lobbies for those products demanded it. And it has caused a lot of friction with America's trading partners.

      Hell, I remember a 'free trade' agreement a few years ago with Australia where not only did America put tariffs on Australian wheat imports (because of pressure from the US wheat lobby), they also insisted as part of their free trade deal that Australia adopt something similar to the DMCA as part of the deal - at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA. So if you really believe America has been doing other countries a favor in it's trading practices (Food for Oil anyone? Or how about withholding aid money, which is supposed to be completely unrelated to trade), then you're deluded.

      In short, protectionism is bad no matter what. Now whether China is banning these exports because it truly doesn't have enough to satisfy domestic demand, and thus can't afford to supply foreign demand, or they're trying to use this threat to gain more concessions from the international community is irrelevant. Instituting protectionist policies won't help Sino-American relations, and considering, as you have said, America relies so heavily on China for it's manufacturing of almost everything we buy, America just can't afford to ruin it's relationship with yet another country, especially one it relies so heavily on.

      America used to be able to take the high moral ground, and used to be viewed in a generally favorable light in the world. It's America's own greed and arrogance (not to mention going around the world like a bull in a china shop sticking it's nose in everyone else's business) that has tarnished this reputation. The election of Obama has actually started to repair this a little, but only when America starts playing fair with the rest of the world again (ie. treating other countries as equals, as opposed to approaching each trade deal as a "we want this, give it to us or else you're not our friend anymore!" deal) will it actually gain respect again. You seem quick to cry 'foul!' when another country starts using the same tactics America has been using for decades against America. You (ie. America) wrote these new trading rules, don't be surprised when someone else plays by them.

    4. Re:The new "oil" by linzeal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok, mister xenophobe.

      Why shouldn't China be entitled to use its own resources to build out its own economy? China has a horrible standard of living for the amount of production present in the country and the pollution that goes along with it. I hope they use it all for domestic green energy projects, because frankly they need it more than we do where going "green" is more a luxury than anything. Building green jobs here with our own rare earths is entirely possible considering we have far more known rare earth ore deposits than they do. So what exactly are you complaining about, that we can't rape their country for all the resources? They have a billion people and it is highly unlikely they will ever have the same standard of living as the US in our lifetime but the very least we could do is not bitch and moan every time China does something nice for its own citizens.

      You know, I would rather deport people like you than hard working or studying immigrants. Why don't you all go down to the south of the US and secede, this time the rest of us northern folk won't stop you. Well considering there is hardly any natural resources in the south besides coal and oil you can all have your coal power plants and big trucks and you won't need to worry about new-fangled technologies irritating you. You can all live gloriously embittered lives scapegoating the rest of the world for your problems as you walk around yelling in the swamps, marshes and hurricane-prone areas of the gulf states like some sort of swamp curmudgeon. You could yourself America for Americans only or something. Build yourself a Lou Dobbsian wall around your entire country to keep Yankees and Mexicans out. Give all those janitorial, landscaping and construction jobs back to Americans because we all know how much Americans love doing menial labor for low wages without health insurance. Right, mister xenophobe?

    5. Re:The new "oil" by Eddi3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not at all what happened to Bush. He served two full terms, and then was no longer eligible for office. He was never voted out.

  2. Update by Dingadong · · Score: 4, Funny

    Terrorists found in Beijing and Shanghai, U.S. Troops invade.

    1. Re:Update by Stu101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Issue with that is that I think China, unlike Iraq, Iran and Saudi could stand up for themselves.

      Don't forget they DO have WMD, massive military complexes and stolen US designs for highly deadly weapons.

      Then there is the cyber angle. I suspect America could be pwned quite quick.

      Lastly, who is gonna supply walley word with cheap tupperware and lawnmowers to the post nuke surviviors. There is no way that could happen.

      China is the new economy. Western Europe is just on a downhill spiral.

       

      --
      http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
    2. Re:Update by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      China is the new economy. Western Europe is just on a downhill spiral.

      No. We are Willie Wonka. China is the Oompa Loompas.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:Update by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I always make the argument, what if China decided one day to the next that 300 million (about a quarter of their country) decided to go for a walk and moved to the US via Alaska. Do you really think anybody could stop 300 million people? Answer NO!

      I don't think anyone really has to. There isn't enough food between China and Alaska, or between Alaska and CONUS, to feed 300 million people. So if the Chinese decided to do something like this, we could reasonably expect the one survivor to be completely unnoticed in the trail of 300,000,000 corpses along the way.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Update by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China has a lot of coastline, but even so I imagine that most of its population aren't capable of swimming the Bering Straits, so boats will be a serious limiting factor on the number of people they can move.

  3. Space Exploration Curtailed by Benson+Arizona · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let's hope that they don't stop dilithium shipments!

  4. Not a Great Analogy by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just what the world economy needs. A single-country "cartel" that will cause prices to greatly rise. This should be interesting to watch.

    I guess rare-earth metals are the new "oil".

    Some key points you may have missed from the article:

    Mr Stephens said China had put global competitors out of business in the early 1990s by flooding the market, leading to the closure of the biggest US rare earth mine at Mountain Pass in California - now being revived by Molycorp Minerals.

    So, if this goes through, we merely open the mine in California. I'll feel better about paying a higher price for something if it is created under tighter environmental regulations than what they have in China. Cheap labor and lack of an EPA and potential corrupted officials? Of course they can undercut California!

    Secondly a rare metals dealer in Australia said

    This isn't about the China holding the world to ransom. They are saying we need these resources to develop our own economy and achieve energy efficiency, so go find your own supplies.

    So your analogy is lacking in many ways. We can refine the metals here and China needs them for their own growing demand.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Not a Great Analogy by raddan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the other hand, cost drives innovation. As the article stated, it may take several years to bring the old rare-earth mines back into operation. In that time, we either pay more, or use our engineering degrees and come up with workarounds. I have a feeling that the latter may frequently be the case. For instance, if rare-earths are required to manufacture hard disk drives, SSDs (which I assume do not require these metals since they require no magnets) will probably become favorable.

      China's move may affect regular people but I suspect not. This is probably more important to you if you're in manufacturing or trade.

    2. Re:Not a Great Analogy by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or alternatively we buy our hard drives from Chinese manufacturers, which I think is what they want to happen..

    3. Re:Not a Great Analogy by lambent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our oil fields are not dry. Our demand outstrips domestic production. It's just easier to buy refined oil from other countries. The bottleneck has been our craptacular refineries for some decades, now.

      We have lots of choices of where to get oil, including the choice to stop using oil. It's just easier to pay someone else to do it for us.

      I assume the same is true of these rare earth metals.

    4. Re:Not a Great Analogy by hany · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or alternatively we buy our hard drives from Chinese manufacturers, which I think is what they want to happen..

      ... and "mine" those Chinese hard-drives for this rare materials to manufacture our own hard drives. :)

      --
      hany
    5. Re:Not a Great Analogy by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll feel better about paying a higher price for something if it is created under tighter environmental regulations than what they have in China. Cheap labor and lack of an EPA and potential corrupted officials? Of course they can undercut California!

      Isn't this the problem ? There is no such thing as "free trade". We're all Ferengi now, the profit is what's important. The mine should have not been allowed to close in the first place. It's ridiculous to say companies have to compete when the competition is an autocratic country with no environmental laws and other "advantages".

      And no, the answer is not to weaken our environmental laws, that's called the race to the bottom, and I don't want to run in that race.

      Child labor, lack of environmental laws, repressive regimes, none of it matters when it comes to "free trade".

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    6. Re:Not a Great Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, I miss the days of over-engineered machines built of inferior materials.

      I have wood working machines from the early 1900's that are more durable, accurate, and mammoth than the cheap plastic shit you buy today.

      Funny thing is, they still work. Like new.

      If this means we actually start over-engineering and building things to -last- again, I'm all for it.

    7. Re:Not a Great Analogy by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not dry, but not nearly enough to supply us. If we stopped importing oil and relied on just our remaining oil, we wouldn't even be able to power the country for a year.

      Well then, we need to tell the environmental groups to shut up and start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico where there were new huge deposits just discovered and in all the other places where they scream either about some lizard, worm, fish, or where they're completely talking out of their ass like with Caribou in Alaska which absolutely love pipelines, etc. Their numbers skyrocket because of the favorable conditions. We also need to tell the NIMBY crowd tough toodles too.

      I'm sick to death of the people who scream bloody murder about domestic oil drilling while expecting society to provide them with a lifestyle, technology, and consumer goods & services that demand we do things they protest about. You can't have it both ways. TANSTAAFL.

      Technology and our knowledge & skills have advanced and we can now drill with far, far less impact than in the '60s, or even the '90s. The same goes for mining.

      Resource infrastructure is really where the US is lacking and what drives the US to engage in much of the types of foreign-policy nastiness so many dislike in order to obtain what our modern society needs to sustain itself while refusing to pay the price ourselves. There are resources the country *must* have to sustain itself and our lifestyles.

      If we prevent those resources from being obtained domestically, then we'll have to live with making nice with countries that abuse their people, trample freedom, are militarily aggressive, support terrorism, and want to harm the US & the West in general. And who, by the way, also don't give a crap how much they pollute the planet. We just end up outsourcing our pollution and enable bad people to do bad things.

      At least if we're drilling in ANWAR, the Gulf, and offshore in California, or mining in California and elsewhere domestically, we can limit the environmental impact which won't happen if we're getting our resources from China, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

      We can mitigate our oil consumption to an extent, but it will realistically take 3 to 5 decades to make a truly significant impact unless we are prepared to allow many people to suffer and many to die unnecessary deaths. We will still need large amounts of oil to sustain plastics, medicines, etc even if we reduce transportation-related uses significantly.

      Or, alternatively, we can just keep whining about domestic oil drilling and domestic mining, in which case little will change except for things getting worse.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:Not a Great Analogy by ZekoMal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not against drilling; drill away. The problem is that there isn't enough; even if we just started drilling in every spot we could, we wouldn't have enough. It's. Not. Sustainable. Every time we find a new pocket of oil, everybody falls silent and slows down work on alternative energy. Look at our alternative energy options: all of them rely on oil in some way. We have no plans, and drilling to fix our oil problems is so short term that it's laughable.

    9. Re:Not a Great Analogy by jbengt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No long term need to drill in expensive, hard to reach places. The US has plenty of matural gas and coal, which could replace much of the oil when costs rise enough to get people to do the engineering.

  5. Reciprocal regulations by valinor89 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think that if they do so they won't mind if we ( as in the other western countries) put prohibitions and restrictions of our own in other product importations. We could revive our cloth, electrodomestic, chemical, (whatever) old industries. It might be a bit expensive at first (mostly for those multinationals ) but then we can be sure of better occupation rates. I's a shame that this is only wishfull thinking...

    1. Re:Reciprocal regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, please, let's unlearn everything from the Great Depression in the middle of a recession. What could possibly go wrong?

    2. Re:Reciprocal regulations by khchung · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It does not even make sense! China restricts exports and you propose retaliation by restricting imports?!

      I assume you live in US (who else always talked about reviving local industries?), do you even know how many export restrictions there are in the US? Crypto, high-tech stuff, whatever vaguely related to "national security", you name it.

      All countries (except those that have already became a vassal state of the US) restricts exports of critical resources, and this is allowed in WTO treaties. Examples from countries all over the world include restricting natural resources, science & technology, and even critical infrastructure (you do know that US blocked a company from buying the operations of the Panama Canal for "national security" reasons?).

      Only in /. would this non-news story becomes news worthy to make the front page.

      --
      Oliver.
  6. Will somebody in the WTO finally grow a pair by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and finally call China out on it's myriad of violations? The US and Europe seem content over bickering about Airbus and Boeing when in actuality, those two companies' violation(if any) are a real drop in the bucket compared to China's insanely flagrant violations. However, the US is an addict hooked on selling China our debt, instead of oh I don't know, not invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 we decided it was a much better idea to sell ourselves lock stock and barrel to the Chinese. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

    1. Re:Will somebody in the WTO finally grow a pair by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fat chance. The US and Western Europe are indeed addicted to the unsustainably cheap supply of Chinese credit and cheap labor. We effectively wink at them gobbling up global resources so they can be churned through a cheap labor pool and nonexistent health/safety regimens in order to satiate our desire for a high standard of living at minimal cost. China never had any real intention to abide by the WTO's rules and viewed membership as a national pride issue. Don't hold your breath waiting for China to alter its behavior even if the WTO adds some stank to their toothless regulations.

  7. Re:Indium by LunaticTippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All of the LCDs I have bought lately have been made in China. Their export ban changes nothing with regard to finished products.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  8. Cash for Rare Earth Metals Program by Maltheus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they're getting tired of exchanging their wealth for our paper. I admire the way China is focused like a laser on their infrastructure and the acquisition of raw materials, while we're busy making up new problems to solve as a way of avoiding the very serious ones we already have. Perhaps if we focused on production, rather than consumption, we might have a little extra wealth to spend on our own decaying infrastructure.

  9. Oil refining capacity by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually the bottleneck has been the impossibility of bringing additional refining capacity online in the US.

    True. And actually this isn't just the case in the USA; there are virtually no new refineries anywhere in the world.

    But actually the main hurdle isn't the NIMBY syndrome or over-regulation - it's a simple matter of return on investment. No-one wants to build a refinery because they take a long time to build, and a long time to recoup your investment, and the world's oil supply is known to be running out. Globally, oil-fields are now considered to be at peak production levels; that's to say, it's unlikely that there will ever be more oil being pumped than there is today. So building new refining capacity is a poor investment. Instead, people are just making do with what there is. That's why Iran is now importing refined petroleum from Venezuela.

    1. Re:Oil refining capacity by Zcar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually the bottleneck has been the impossibility of bringing additional refining capacity online in the US.

      True. And actually this isn't just the case in the USA; there are virtually no new refineries anywhere in the world.

      While the US hasn't built new refineries, existing ones have been expanded with a near 2 million barrel per day increase (over 12%) from 1985 to present (most of the increase has come since 1995).

  10. Re:Woo-hoo - by BizzyM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Makes perfect sense: we won't export "super computers" like the Playstation to China. China had to figure out what they have that we want and then squeeze it. With all the "green" technology relying on electric motors, we need those rare earth magnets. Bravo, China. Bravo.

  11. Re:Woo-hoo - by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you really expect a country that at least used to charge families for the bullets used to execute family members to act in a humanitarian way?

  12. Re:Woo-hoo - by BizzyM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NO. I expect them to exact revenge.

  13. Re:What can I say. Slashdotters needs to get out m by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

    By Chinese standard, the fact that the US has so much porn is just unheard of. Porn is not only illegal but also considered immoral.

    Hold it, I thought only right wing Christian nutjobs wanted to make porn illegal? Are you trying to tell me that the Chinese government is controlled by right wing Christian nut jobs?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  14. Re:Woo-hoo - by compro01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This distinctly reminds me of an old joke.

    A man walks into a Chinese restaurant and sees the owner reading the paper and smiling. He asks what he's happy about and he points to the front page of the paper which says "100000 Chinese killed in combat!" with "10000 Japanese killed". The man is confused as to why such a stunning loss would be cause for happiness. The Chinese man replies "At this rate, there soon won't be any Japanese left!".

    China is BIG. They've got roughly 1/5 of the world's people. They've got more people than the EU, the US, Japan, and even Russia all put together.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  15. Oil by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It will get more expensive, but we still have significant oil reserves

    Rare metals, who knows. If it gets down to national survival, there's a buhzillion acres in federal land (parks and etc) that are currently off limits to mining, but that could change fast.

    And we are just scratching the surface on R&D with biofuels. Corn (any cheap sugars) ethanol and soybean (and many other crops) biodiesel are mere first gen efforts, they work right now but are resource and cash expensive. Once next gen gets rolling, like with engineered algae and waste biomass conversion and so on, which could be combined with solar and wind power to run the conversion facilities, we could have liquid transportation fuels for a long time, indefinitely really, as long as we also keep working on better efficiencies and get a lot of the commuter cars running on electricity, and save the liquid fuels more for long haul trucking and ag machinery and aircraft uses etc..

  16. They are not CONSIDERING; They DID IT by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China is now refusing to export a number of rare earth elements. These are ones that are currently expensive to get elsewhere. In addition, they HAVE put caps on other ones. But that is not the real problem.

    The real issue is that they are running around BUYING UP all the mines in the free world. Basically, they are trying hard to make a monopoly of this. The place to watch is Australia, Canada, and America. America has the largest active RE mines and China made a bid for these last year(US gov said no). They currently are trying to buy 2 start-up mines in Australia. Finally, IIRC, they DID buy a Canadian producer (though I do not recall where mines were located).

    The other day I commented about how we should be mining space, to which a fool responded that it was not practical. At that time, I pointed out that long-term countries would try to limit access to various elements/minerals. Sure enough, that day was when I found out about China thinking of limiting REM. The problem is that when items are taken off the market, it means that you limit countries capabilities. That tends to make wars happen. Imagine if another GWB gets into office in say about 2 years and REM is expensive to the west. GWB would go to war over this because CHina is building up their military and will want to stop it before they get too strong. Keep in mind that China is positioning themselves for a first strike, not for a defensive position. If we want to avoid stupid wars, we MUST get into space and locate new elements/minerals esp. REMs. They are the foundation of militaries as well as electrical systems. All of our future motors and many of the advanced electronic boards depend on these.

    China is not about playing fair. They are very much in a cold war with the west, whether we like it or now. If we want to prevent a hot war, we will have to prevent them from limiting our access to resources (either by war or by finding new cheap mines) and will have to bring back manufacturing.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  17. Re:Woo-hoo - by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Revenge? It's not revenge. It's their resources, they can CHOOSE to sell it to us, or they can CHOOSE to hoard it for their own use, or they can CHOOSE to turn it into a life sized replica of the pyramids just because they can. That's the nature of it being THEIRS.

    Looking at the history of things like rubber, tea, diamonds and oil, it would seem that we are not aware that we have no God given right to the resources of others, no matter how much we tell ourselves we need it for our survival. Has UK/US historical foreign policy gotten that far into the public mindset that we now get all angsty and self-righteous whenever some country decides that they need their resources more than we need their resources? Seriously people, if we're going to think this way and then acquiesce to the military being used to go fetch those resources and destroy the other country in the process, then lets at least not act all surprised when they get fed up and fly planes into our buildings.

    --
    I hate printers.
  18. Africa by Shag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Another big source of uncommon metals is sub-Saharan Africa - for example, something like 80% of the world's supply of either Cobalt or Coltan comes from mines in the Congo. And China has been making big inroads into that region too, in terms of international aid and trade.

    There are times that being an officially godless commie state comes in handy, really. US shows up and says "we'll give you aid money as long as you don't promote safe sex, and oh, sorry, our business community is a little too nervous to really trade with you." China shows up and just says "look, we want to do business; you have resources we need."

    Unsurprisingly, African governments are talking more to China these days.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  19. short-sighted thinking by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting
    is EXACTLY what has gotten us to where we are. China is in a cold war with us and it needs to be addressed.

    I TRUST that you are kidding about tariffs, yes? They do not work. The issue is that China was given MFN and into WTO by promising to open their borders and to free their money. All good. Problem is that China has not LIVED up to their word. They still have barriers up and most of all, the money is not traded freely. It is in a "basket" that is controlled by their gov. In addition, they allow pollution (co2 and other ) to be emitted in large amounts to give an even larger boost to low costs. Our energy bill is going to be a disaster and will encourage China,India,Mexico, etc to pollute more to take more jobs.

    So, here is my solution:
    1. Pollution is a serious issue, but so are economic issues. Kill the new energy bill before it gets implemented. Instead put in a TRUE cap/tax. We need to put in a cap on our CO2, and then put in a tax on ALL GOODS (local and imported). It should be based on the pollution that comes from the areas that the good was made from. That means that each country has a sliding scale based on CO2, and ideally the pollutions such as SO2, Mercury, etc. To implement this all at once would hurt the world. Instead, create a max of say 2-3% and than slowly raise that several percent each year. That gives each nation the opportunity to change (including America).
    2. Drop the MFN for all nations. Nearly all the countries that are part of that were for political reasons only. That needs to be stopped. Instead, create a new MFN and set up the conditions in which ALL NATIONS that meet it would get it. It should be a limited set of conditions.
      • freely traded money (EUdollar is freely traded; Yuens -> dollar is fixed).
      • Free trade. Not sure exactly HOW free, but most if not all goods should be allowed to move back and forth. Exceptions should be made for certain goods. For example, NAFTA was overall good. It has helped Mexico and Canada.
      • A minimum standard of an environmental condition. That would prevent countries from subsidizing the goods by degrading the world. Personally, I would prefer Canada as minimum. MUCH cleaner than most. We would probably just use ours though.
      • A minimum wage and labor condition.
      • A minimum education condition (such as requiring all children in school up to a certain age), etc.

      If we do the above, then there will be no real need for free trade acts. What is really needed is to make certain that we avoid exceptions. There are a number of countries that we allow to have one-way trade with us and do little to nothing to help those countries.

    If the above is done by the west, it would bring up conditions all over the world. EU has talked about doing Free Trade agreements with Latin America, but they want to use it to push better conditions for the citizens. I have to say that it is not a bad idea, but I think the above is even better.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  20. Chani has done this in other markets as well by Terje+Mathisen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Until about 10 years ago, there were many magnesium manufacturers around the world, including one in my home town of Porsgrunn (in Norway).

    When China decided that light metals was a crucial market for them, they started a bunch of very low-tech/high-pollusion magnesium smelters, and many/most Western competitors folded.

    In the latest (for the year 1998) SFT (Norwegian EPA) regulations for the Porsgrunn factory (in norwegian), the limit on some pollutants was set to maximum 1 gram/year, I suspect the Chinese smelters are many orders of magnitude above this level.

    Terje

    --
    "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
  21. Re:Woo-hoo - by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hear ignorance speaking. China is definitely moving into the 21st century. Their arms may not yet be equal to everything the west has, but they are catching up.

    But, more importantly, China can suffer losses at a 100 to 1 ratio, and win against any competitor. If it came to war, the west would either form a coalition, or lose. Oh yeah, we could go nuclear - but so can they. Warring with China isn't something that you want to see happen. It wouldn't be a walk in the park.

    Perhaps most people are unaware that China has been involved in all the wars in Asia over the decades? Mostly indirectly - supplying "advisors", technical advice and training, putting observers on the ground, and offering moral and political support.

    N. Korea still stands as a thorn in the west's side.

    There is no longer a "South" Vietnam.

    Discounting China's ability to fight, based on the poor quality of outdated hardware is foolish and dangerous.

    More, China isn't looking for a conventional war, any more than we are. "Assassin's Mace" is a plan to gain world domination via assymetrical warfare. The restrictions on strategic resources is part of that plan, just as the flooding (devaluing) of the market in past years was part of that plan.

    Go ahead, mock the "sleeping giant", if you will. It only exposes your ignorance.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  22. Re:Woo-hoo - by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Problem is, we aren't fighting, let alone choosing our battles. China's export industry is expanding throughout Africa and Asia at exponential rates, while our exports shrink. Worse, American corporations are actively exporting technology and jobs to China. IBM, among others, are moving out of the country.

    The corporate world has largely abandoned the United States, and many of those who have abandoned us have thrown in with China.

    There IS a war, of sorts, and China appears to be winning it.

    Our military might may outclass China's, but military muscle is useless without logistics. All of the world's greatest military leaders have been masters logistics. Poor logistics killed the German army on the eastern front, remember? Most people claim that the Russian winter killed that army, but in fact, it was the lack of logistics. If humans on one side of the war survived the winter, then the humans on the other side of the war could have survived - had they planned ahead, and provided the shelter, clothing, and food required to survive such an environment.

    "when you use deception" and "I am wary of playing hardball with China". I assure you, China is playing hardball, and we are being deceived.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  23. Sort of, a longer range view here by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At current recovery rates and tech level, yes, but that will get better, there's more there, and they are still finding big fields elsewhere, like the recent big gulf discovery..and who knows what they have squirreled away in the arctic, either known about and kept secret, or still to be found.

        Combined with more efficient vehicles,(a LOT more efficient, it's possible today with bog standard today's tech, every place BUT the US has a much wider choice of better mileage vehicles) and electric vehicles, and using what petroleum we have in blends with advanced biofuels, we could get by on a reduced petroleum supply load for even longer.

        And telecommuting, a few tens of billion in better data infrastructure could eliminate the need for hundreds of billions worth in commuting costs and pollution., which is cheaper and easier, transporting some electrons, or millions of meat sacks in heavy steel boxes twice a day?

        Giant office towers that are there just so folks can sit in front of a computer screen are *rather wasteful*, when folks can stay home and sit in front of a computer screen. All that commuting and having to keep those huge buildings running, proly 3/4ths wasted right there just because a lot of these companies haven't had the right incentive (that would be clubs to the head to get them to wake up) and cut loose from the Ebenezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchitt 1700s mentality of the necessity of BEING at the office all the time, and make better use of the tech we have now and enter the 21st century. Plus think of the sheer millions of man hours that could be saved not riding in a car or bus or train or even a dang bicycle back and forth and back and forth and back and forth to work.

    We can go a long ways to dropping petroleum (and coal and natgas and..) demand without sacrificing any cool modern way of life, just by doing things smarter instead oif perpetuating obsolete tech because a few already rich people can skim so much profit from it. Heck, we could probably get by with very few new powerplants if they adjusted building codes (and mortgage loan approvals) to require a lot more insulation. The bulk of our electricity use is heating and cooling, and I know that this demand/requirement level can be dropped drastically, I used to be in that biz for a while, retrofitting for more energy efficiency.

        You can read a scosh about it here, superinsulation. It's amazing, you got to see it to believe it almost. You can get some serious savings by just *using* tech that has already been developed decades ago. It ain't sexy for wallstreet skimmers and gamblers that much, so it isn't pushed "in the market" as it could be, or for academic wanking research, but it IS possible. No new nuthin needs to be invented or funded by vulture capitalists or needs "government studies". Just double or triple our generic 50s and 60s level insulation that exists in millions of homes and buildings, along with a few other tweaks like better windows and doors and so on, and you'd be surprised how that works out for the electric bill.

        Easy enough done with a simple one page legislative bill and decent and credible sized tax credits, extended for some years. It could create a million new and actually *useful* jobs and save hundreds of billions in energy costs and dramatically reduce air pollution. But no one big company could get a monopoly on it, not a lot of patents to troll with, etc, so it ain't pushed, and dang sure the energy companies don't push it, cuts directly into the ole bottom line there. Lip service at best, they push what I would term 1/4 ass efforts, not even half assed. And they call that "good cents". I call it deliberate misdirection and marketing propaganda.

    You want to see what really could be accomplished today, with both housing and transportation, check out some of the designs at the solar decathlon competition.