Divestment Rewards?

There is a reason why there is antitrust legislation on the books of our nation’s laws. Many decades ago, as the industrial revolution was peaking, there was a lot of wealth and power concentrated in few people. This is the era of huge fortunes and names like Rockefeller, Getty, Carnegie, and Morgan. It was creating a monopoly of power in key United States industries, like steel, oil, transportation, and communications. So the government, in a magnanimous sign of socialism, enacted these laws in order to help keep the American dream alive for the majority of the people. Some people have claimed that it merely puts capital into inefficient hands, thus hampering the progress of an industrial nation, but I would argue that by lifting up the bottom of the economic sectors, we can only better ourselves in the long run. That is still up to debate.

Fast forward nearly 70 years, to the 1984 divestment of AT&T, aka Ma Bell. At the order of the government seven spin-offs were generated to handle local telephone service. They included Pacific Bell, Bellsouth, Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, USWest, Ameritech, and Southwestern Bell. AT&T held on to its long-distance services, which were immediately faced with competition from companies like Sprint and MCI. Good for competition, right? But the wheels of capitalism move in much more subtle ways. Over the years, the “baby bells” have been slowly merging, re-grouping, enlarging their holdings. In the late 1990s, Southwest Bell purchases Pacific Telesis (PacBell), Southern New England Telecommunications and then Ameritech. Under the name SBC, the group now consists of 3 of the original 7 spin-offs. Then SBC joins cellular plans with BellSouth in a 60/40 split. By 2004 it has merged with AT&T Wireless into one unit. It is not done yet. In 2005, SBC reaches an agreement to merge with AT&T, its former parent company. It is approved, and rebrands to AT&T for unity sake.

And now we come to the present. It was announced today that BellSouth shareholders ok a merger with AT&T (the one-time SBC). Should the SEC approve the merger, this would mean that the wireless company would finally come home to roost under one management structure. And it would mean that 4 of the 7 baby bells have regrouped with the parent company and added the major wireless network to its holdings. All in under 24 years. What was the original divestment for, if it was only to buy two decades of “competition” before allowing them to consolidate once more? Talk about inefficiency in economics.

Should the merger go through, AT&T (blue) would be merged with BellSouth (yellow). Image courtesy of wikipedia.org

Shame on you GM

What a sham! On the way to work, the news reported that General Motors was offering qualified buyers a cap on the gasoline they buy. The models that are eligible, and must be bought between may 25 and July 5, are some of the largest, most gas-guzzling models GM currently offers. Included in that bunch is the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, the Hummer H2 and H3, the GMC Yukon, and more. The rebates apply only to those buyers in California or Florida and are also contingent on purchasing the OnStar diagnostic system.

Thank you, GM, for continually lowering the bar on helping to rid ourselves of oil dependence and working to preserve the environment. While nearly all other major auto manufacturers have worked to develop cleaner burning, lower emission, higher mileage vehicles, you create this. This is what happens when a stagnant auto maker, seeing the numbers falling on their beloved SUVs as people wisen up to the costs - both social, environmental, and financial - of owning such hulking monstrosities, decides that, rather than adapt to the market and improve their autos, they're going to jam their fingers in the dam and hope to hell that staves off disaster. Ford didn't follow this example; they introduced a hybrid vehicle. VW has improved their diesel offerings. Only you are sitting here pining away on the glory days of SUV bumper crops. It's time to face the facts GM and get with the program. I hope your rebate program goes no where.

The Rational Environmentalist: Economics as a Tool

sorry for the long post this week...

At first it seems a contradiction in terms. Rational environmentalist. Environmentalists, who for decades have been associated with impassioned speeches and desperate acts of heroism (some would say stupidity) in the name of saving the environment, but very few people would make the leap to call them rational. I think that this irrationality on the part of the environmental movement is a large problem, one that will undermine their future effectiveness as protectors of the natural world. For too long have the public waded through shock therapies designed to jolt us into a compassionate viewpoint of the world, and steel our reserve to do all things necessary to prevent degradation wrought by other groups. However, there are far too many who do not respond with the arduous vigor that was hope, and yet environmentalists continue to bray into the wind. Even the Democratic Party, long a stalwart supporter of the environmental movement, has begun to take steps away from the green fringe. Why? Because they have lost their touch with reality, in numerous ways.

Ask anyone to describe an environmentalist and the response is uncannily similar: a hippie-ish figure opining fervently about some nature issue, or about the evils of an industry, company, or individual. Large, grandiose gestures on the part of the environmentalists have become a major perception of the entire group. Groups like Greenpeace have furthered this image, throwing themselves into admirable yet ultimately futile gestures. Chaining themselves to trees, blockading bulldozers, rafting against oilrigs and tankers, these scenarios have become so banal they now fail to arouse the least bit of curiosity in the general public, let alone a zealous response of indignation. These tactics, while once persuasive, have lost their effectiveness in the face of modern society.

So what recourse do environmentalists have? To where should they turn when the irrational spew they are so accustomed to churning out is lifeless? I would postulate that moving in the other direction would be the best course of action. By rationalizing their pro-environment arguments, they will strengthen their positions as well as widen their own listening base, and in turn raise their own coalition to a new level. For too long has the heated rhetoric isolated those people who are most important to the environment’s cause. Because everyone has the possibility to play a part in this issue. It is not merely a white problem, or an atheistic problem or a rural problem; the health of the environment, and all the trappings that go with it, is everyone’s concern. That is a challenge to environmentalists: to engage all sectors of our society. And loud speeches or futile displays are no longer sufficient. We need to reach them on a level they can relate to and empathize with. And this involvement will open them up; bringing the issues closer to home will establish beyond a shadow of a doubt why the everyman must also champion the environment.

The inevitable question that follows is where do environmentalists find that common language, the means with which they will reach out and rally others to their cause? The answer lies in the language of all modern societies: economics. The very power environmentalists are accused of disrupting could prove to be a powerful ally.

For years, it has been assumed that the environmental movement is counter-economic growth. A common viewpoint is that it is necessary to utilize our natural resources to their fullest extent at the risk of losing out in economic development against the rest of the world. It is apparent even in today's politics, when our president refuses to join the Kyoto Protocol because it would endanger American businesses and would impose too great costs to our federal budget. Ditto for his decision to weaken mercury emission requirements despite EPA reports suggesting otherwise.

In this world, and especially in a capitalist-driven country such as this, a great number of times, the dollar is the bottom line. And it is to this that environmentalists must also address when they are enhancing their communication with other factions of this nation. Environmentalists need to highlight the practical nature of strong green policy; that it makes good economic, as well as social, sense to protect the wilderness. Overly aggressive harvesting of our natural resources is an economically unsound policy that will drain our economy faster than we would like to believe.

A very relevant article appeared in the March 2005 issue of Outside magazine. In this article, it went on to describe several examples of how economics can work to benefit the environment. One such example: when New York State had allocated $8 billion to construct and $300 million annually to maintain a new water purification system. Instead of building an entirely new treatment plant, they decided to spend $2 billion of that improving the health of the Catskills Mountains, a natural watershed for the state. The state found, after this restoration, the watershed alone was purifying the water enough so they did not have to alter any additional existing infrastructure of their urban system. In effect, preserving the Catskill Mountains saved New York State $6 billion plus the annual costs. This, in effect, makes those mountains worth in excess of $6 billion in assets just for water purification. This does not include recreation, possible carbon sinks, quality-of-life improvements, a plethora of other points that healthy ecosystems add to an economy. It is an interesting article to read, and this is just one example they give. Another example is the CAFE standards put in place by Carter in the late 70s. While reducing foreign oil imports by 87% and raising the fuel efficiency of the American fleet by 6mpg, the economy still grew by 27%, greater than 4% a year. And in 1995, the US Forestry Service studied the value of their land holdings and discovered the national forests of this country create nearly $94 billion in recreation-based economic activity annually. In comparison, these lands generated less than $20 billion in timber and mining revenue combined.

Economics is predominant in the minds of Americans, whether the environmental movement wants to believe it or not. One of the greatest issues facing them now is addressing these concerns, and making the general public realize it makes sense, economically as well as environmentally, to preserve the land for long-term use. It will have benefits that are far-reaching. With this new economics coming to bat for us, we have a new weapon we can use to educate and illuminate others to our cause.

The use of economics by the environmental sector is more than an educational tool. While the numbers, figures, and charts can work towards convincing people that the environment matters as much as their pocket books matter, the principles of economics provide the green movement with a new weapon. As money is the blood flow of the world, its constriction or dilation by organizations can prove useful motivation to achieving an end. And by applying this pressure judiciously, wilderness organizations can reap large benefits geared towards achieving their goals. One of these economic tools is an effective boycott.

You must qualify a boycott as effective because it has become another nominal threat from the environmental community. In response to any number of perceived slights, the environmental community jumps into action, calling for “boycotts” of the offending member. Whether these slights are real or not is not the subject of this article; the fact is that they are begun, word is spread to a few similarly-fervent people, and it ends up a 5pm news story at the boycott site. However, it rarely makes any sort of difference to the individual or company or industry that they are trying to impact. Why is this? To investigate what makes an effective boycott, we’ll examine one of the most influential boycotts in American history: the 1955 boycott of the Montgomery bus service after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. What attributes of this boycott made it so prominent in the American psyche, and had such far-reaching effects for the civil rights movement?

The first aspect that becomes apparent of the Montgomery boycott is the size. Contrary to many of the more modern, half-hearted boycotts, the Montgomery bus service witnessed a drop-off in a large number of riders. The scope of the boycott took the bus service, and the country, by surprise. And a boycott requires such a force in order to make itself truly effective. A boycott carried out by a grand total of a few dozen, maybe even a few hundred, is not able to put a dent into the economics of major organizations like the bus service. It needs a mass of people willing to carry out the boycott en masse.

The second noticeable difference that the Montgomery bus boycott possessed compared to modern boycotts is the duration. There have been some people who have called for oil boycotts, to demonstrate the public’s displeasure of the oil industry and their tactics in pricing or environmental stewardship. However, most of these boycotts ask for a measly week’s worth of boycotting. The problem with this is that people will effectively countermand their own boycott by stocking up before or immediately after the week-long boycott. People reason, “I’ll boycott, but I still need to drive, so I will fill up the tank before the boycott starts, then I can participate.” The oil company does not feel it is in any danger, for it knows that fact. Deferred purchases do not make any sort of impact against these mega-corporations. In contrast, the Montgomery bus boycott lasted over a year. This length brought the bus company to its knees, depriving it of a great source of revenue and eventually forcing it to capitulate to the boycott’s demands. This length serves two purposes. One is to systematically work against the aggressor financially, and the duration is necessary for the company to feel the effects of what you’re trying to achieve. And with the distinct large-ness of modern corporations, it has become a longer timeframe in order to effect these realizations. The second aspect of the time length is to grow the boycott. A week’s boycott is difficult to educate enough people and have enough participants to make it effective. There had actually been bus boycotts before the 1955 one; they lasted from one week to three months, but never had a significant influence in achieving their ultimate goal: desegretation of the bus system. However, as the time goes on, and people become attracted to the cause, they can join and multiply the effects to an even greater magnitude. Yet another reason for an effective boycott to have a long duration is psychological. Being able to abstain, to put the cause above petty personal desires, reflects the deepness of the value which one places in the actions they are espousing. It is easy to pick up a boycott for a week, and then go back to a normal life without a second thought. More difficult, and much more impressive, to maintain a boycott for six months. It proves that this is something cared about ardently enough to sacrifice for long periods of time. It is this which gets attention, and helps drive media frenzy around a boycott to educate even more possible participants and grow the boycott to maximize efficiency.

There is one facet of an effective boycott that makes it impossible to fail: the dedication of the participants. This will be discussed at some length in a later article, but it is necessary to have the boycotters committed to the cause. There is a need for a measure of personal sacrifice on the part of the participants. Boycotts, and making changes, does not come easy, and with the time involved, can impose some hardships on the persons involved. In the continuing example of Montgomery, it resides in the inability for a great number of people to use personal transit in order to get to their jobs, schools, and daily errands. But this was endured, and the results speak for themselves. I seriously doubt any of the boycotters would look back and feel that it was a waste of their time and inconvenience. (In an interesting, ironic twist, the iconographic environmental boycott of refusing to buy gasoline would require people to subsist on public transportation, rather than shunning it.) But this sacrifice, this resolve, is an integral part of a boycott, something without which no action would bear fruit.

There are other aspects of economics that can be utilized to help bring about changes to existing environmental conditions. A lot of these also involve economics’ twin brother, politics. Tax subsidies/penalties, mandatory standards of emissions/quality control (mostly political, but can still have wide-spread economic consequences for the companies involved), even something as simple as a refund for aluminum can recycling has economic implications for the betterment of the environment. These are economic powers that can be positive or negative, depending on the influence one wishes to implement. But they still constitute a broadening region that the environmental movement can make use of to expand their own interests to great effort.

However, the sword that stands to be inherited by environmentalists is double-edged. While it can be used with great possibility to force change in industries that have thus far proved to be beyond governmental control (either by campaign contributions or sheer brute political force), economics also will force the environmentalists to evaluate their own priorities and better focus their efforts. The economics that drives the world brings the priorities of a society into sharp relief. These will invariably be industries that are more or less valuable to the economy, just as these sectors will have varying levels of negative environmental impact. While it is a natural desire to eliminate all of the evils the environment is currently facing, in an economic sense it is not possible to address all issues simultaneously. The environmental movement must prioritize their agendas, though this may seem counter-productive. By using economics they are able to evaluate where their efforts would yield the greatest returns. This article is not about enumerating these choices; rather, it is about the necessity to implement this method of thinking. A lot of environmentalists have unrealistic expectations of large, sudden changes in a given society’s growth and/or consumption patterns. But the truth is these adjustments must always be gradual. Nothing can really be achieved overnight. By looking at all the implications of a particular industry’s errors and the measures necessary to redress the problems, the environmentalists can work towards effective yet also realistic accomplishments. To ignore the other facets of reality leaves the movement as a whole out of touch and ultimately sterile. An example is the forest industry. There are a great number of activists who decry any use of timber in modern society. They would prefer to close down all major forest harvesting projects. The reality is that lumber, paper, and other forest products are vital portions of modern living and consumption. It is impossible to grind all that to a halt immediately. And since there is this high demand for their products, shutting down American forest harvesting will only shift the problem elsewhere in the world, moving to new possible suppliers. Rather, the gradual management and reduction of logging will elicit a greater result, be easier to motivate other citizens to follow, and generate greater acquiescence from industry. Investing their energies in recycled paper products, alternative building technologies/materials, and sustainable harvesting management plans will produce gradual yet continuous positive improvements. This is the way that, thankfully, a lot of environmental organizations have chosen to follow, and I sincerely hope they use this judicious evaluation and attack process towards all of their endeavors. It remains that the fringe needs to get with this program, for it is their unusually harsh and loud voices that are creating detrimental roadblocks for progress.

If this sounds like an MBA talking, that is good. The people environmentalists are most directly working against are business leaders. The public is secondary in this matter. The public always states, in pre-election polls, that the environment is high in their minds and electoral considerations. But when the day actually arrives, more practical concerns take over their minds. The economy, foreign trade, job growth, federal budget and deficit, all preoccupy the citizens’ collective interest when the ballot is cast. For too long has the environment been viewed as antithetical to economic prosperity. For too long have companies and governments used financial statistics to beat down environmental policy. The tide is turning; those same statistics are beginning to prove the point that wilderness and consumption patters matter. And in order to make the argument stronger, iron-clad, environmentalists need to trade the soapbox for the cost-analysis study. By becoming rational environmentalists, we inherit the power to make our most irrational dreams come true.


You can find the Outside magazine article on the internet at http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200503/money-and-the-environment_1.html

Where’d American Industry Go?

Here is a scary thought, and it is brought to us today from Akio Morita, founder of Sony Corporation. After advising Third World countries that their best opportunity to become a nation-state is to develop a manufacturing capacity, he also lends a word of caution: "That world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power." It is eerily prescient for our own future, with our manufacturing sectors decimated from decades of globalization and free trade. America grew and prospered, first and foremost, on the backs of our industrial sectors. We led the world, at one point, in oil production, gold, silver, copper, cotton, corn, steel… it was these core, physical industries upon which we leapfrogged the rest of the world to become the pre-eminent country. Our society was rich from the profits of these industries.

However, as time moved on, these industries became less and less important to the economic power we had created. After WWII, we tried to pry open markets around the world, lowering tariffs and trade barriers to halt the advance of communism. Free trade was heralded as the way to open markets, to generate new jobs for our workers and the open markets would thus prevent the spread of communism. But somewhere along the way free trade took over open and free markets. In order to have a free trade situation that works, you need to implement labor rights, property rights, environmental rights, judicial rights – all of which are conditions for a prospering economy. When Greece and Portugal wanted to enter the Common Market, the member states utilized around $5billion over five years to help their markets reach maturity before free trade was initiated. When China joined the WTO, the pact did not enforce trade, dumping, or environmental laws. It was a boon to big business.

But having opened markets worldwide, the United States is not at the mercy of this global capitalist monster. The jobs have been at a steady outward flux, first coming from the very industrial entities mentioned above. Not to worry, the US is a more service-based economy now. Then call centers, admin staffing and dispatches moved over seas. Still, the United States has its high tech market, the R&D workhorse of the world. But with those facilities also leaving, one can ask, “What is left?”

The company environment has been altering as well. Companies have grown in the rich medium of American capitalism for decades, sometimes centuries, as we created the conditions ripe for them to grow. Now they are metamorphosing into transnational entities. They are shedding this protective cocoon, and we run the risk of becoming the discarded husk of a nation. How did this happen?

The penultimate mistake, as I have long believed, is allowing business into the political arena. Companies are good at one thing, and one thing only: making money. They are designed purely to turn profits out of raw inputs, and with capitalism they have shown they are extremely adept at doing just that. However, companies have no clue how to run a country. But we have allowed them into our politics, and this has caused a disruption of a natural check-and-balance system. Companies, for example, don’t care about worker safety. They are willing to work people as hard and as dangerously as they can still turn a profit. This is not a failing, it is in their economic genetics. It is up to the government to provide for the workers, make sure they have adequate protections and guarantees for their wellbeing.

But if you let in corporations into a political system, you can start to spell disaster. They get influence over the politics and policies of a region, and they are main drivers in policy decisions that might not be the best for the people who live there. Through corporate donations, they are able to insert themselves into nearly any political debate, their lobbying firms strong to protect their interest. Once upon a time, it was in their interest to protect their profits from competition. So America enacted tariffs, blockades, restrictions, quotas, a whole army of regulations aimed at keeping American companies intact. But now, with the companies becoming transnational, they do not look to America to protect them anymore. Actually, they are working against those same legislations they wanted so desperately in the past, because it dilutes their power to do business on a global scale. They were able to secure tax breaks for incorporating offshore, and so now are robbing the United States of nearly $70 billion a year in tax revenue.

And the political parties, as they stand now, are powerless to stop them. They are dependent on these companies for contributions and donations to keep their short-lived spotlight of fame, and in doing so sell out the demands and desires of their constituents, the people. The citizens of this country become marginalized at the expense of the corporate profit machine.

I do not have all the answers as to how to solve America’s disappearing act with respect to jobs, but I can guarantee that it is a good first step to have the people take over our politics once more. With a government looking out for us as a nation first, and company profits a distant second or third, then we can start to build a strong nation. The demise of our industrial sectors may indeed be a premonition of impending decay, as Morita suggested. We should take heed to ensure that his words don’t ring too true.

Destructive Protectivism

The United States seems to be heading in a rather worrisome direction in terms of how the government handles competition from abroad. This is not about outsourcing, but it is about free-marked capitalism, a tenet of our economic society that our current President fiercely endorses (his notable refusal to bail out the auto industry is one such indication). With this passionate stance, it is hard to imagine that this same administration, indeed the entire US government, has been slowly trying to interfere with the markets, especially when it concerns products from other countries Too often, the knee-jerk reaction in the government at all levels has been to block moves, to impose tariffs, to ban products when it is contrary to what a large American corporation/industry desires The examples go on and on.

2002:The Bush administration places a tariff on the majority of steel imports from Europe, Asia, and South America that lasts for 20 months The range of the tariffs ran between 8 and 30 percent. These were imposed for two reasons, it seems. One was to protect the last remaining steel facilities in the Eastern United States from cheaper, better products from overseas. It was also done to gain political capital in the Rust Belt, which is a crucial battlefield in recent Presidential elections. The move was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization, but that did nothing to stop the administration. It was only after the European Union and Japan announced they would impose sanctions on billions of dollars of US exports that the administration backed down from its claims.

2004:California begins the process to be the first state in the nation to allow hybrid vehicles to utilize the carpool lane with only a driver. This was to encourage people to buy and use hybrids, which dramatically reduce the amount of exhaust as well as gasoline consumption. At the time, the vast majority of the hybrid vehicles were supplied by Japanese companies, notably Toyota and Honda. The American auto industry responded with an intended lawsuit, claiming that this gave Toyota and Honda, who spent years developing this beneficial technology, an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Luckily, the suit never got far, and the hybrid exemption for the carpool lanes is now in effect.

1990s-2005:In one of the most egregious cases of tariffs, the catfish industry took a scathing response to the rise in quality and demand for Vietnamese catfish. The catfish industry in Vietnam had been growing slowly but surely since the Vietnam War, and by the 1990s they had begun to export their catfish across the world, including the United States. They had soon dominated over a fifth of the market in frozen catfish. The US catfish industry wouldn’t stand for that, so they went to their government for protectionist legislation. Boy did they get it. First, Sen. Trent Lott, R-MS, adds an amendment to an unrelated appropriations bill saying that only American catfish can be termed, “catfish”. The Vietnamese fish have to be called, “basra>” or “tra” despite the fact that they’re nearly identical fish. Rep. Marion Berry, D-AR went even further, insinuating that Vietnamese catfish are contaminated with Agent Orange. Haha. Then, the industry filed an anti-dumping suit against the Vietnamese catfisheries. This law usually works for industries that demonstrate an unfair competitive advantage, usually by subsidies. However, the US Commerce Department couldn’t find evidence that there was any heavily subsidizing of the catfish industry in Vietnam. Nevertheless, they bowed to pressure and declared that all Vietnamese industries – all of them – were by nature anti-competitive.

However, the Vietnamese catfish must have been that good, as a 2005 poll in Mississippi concluded that American consumers preferred the Vietnamese “basra” by a margin of 3 to 1. Similar, though slimmer, margins were found by a survey in Louisiana. This wouldn’t stand, so in August of 2005, largely under the radar of media attention, Alabama and Louisiana declared an out-right ban against catfish from Vietnam. Their reasoning rested on the case of the catfish possessing a “bioterrorist” threat to United States consumers. Wow.

These are but a few examples of the types of tariffs that the government has been trying to implement, or that industry has been pressuring them to advance. It is a natural feeling to want to protect our own industries, but these measures take nativist thinking to a new, and dangerous, level. Such extended forms of economic isolationism and protectivism have never really worked. Europe in the few decades preceding the 1990s relied on such an approach in their auto industry, when faced with competition from leaner, cheaper Japanese models. The US stood against them and forced themselves to adapt and change. The resultEurope’s market share fell dramatically, while the US survived and began a new era of car manufacturing that could rival Japan’s. And, in the new era of globalization, such measures are not likely to be tolerated by other areas of the world. As exemplified by the response to steel tariffs by both the EU and Japan, protectivism will only lead to further economic rivalries, tariffs, embargoes, and complications. It is counter-intuitive to the notion of a free market to combat improvements in an industry with such backwards thinking. It reflects poorly on our own industries, as well as a combative attitude of our government. That is not conducive to this new world of global trade. I hope we can rise above this current trend to show the world we are still the masters of innovation, and of the free market economy.

Pursuing the Pearl

China’s economic boon in the last 10-15 years is probably the best thing that could happen to the United States. It has brought innumerable and invaluable attention to our own situation in the world, our desires, our policies, and our future. More than any other nation in the globalization movement, China has brought the powerful gaze of American society to bear upon itself. And from that introspection, we all can benefit, should the American’s take stock of what the Chinese have so kindly pointed out to us.

The booming Chinese economy has thrust many issues to the forefront of global awareness. None of those is more prominent than the consumption patterns of Western nations, especially the United States. Any environmentalist, when the subject of 1st world nation consumption is broached, will immediately recount the fact that the Untied States, despite being only 5% of the world population, consumes approximately 25% of the resources of the globe. While this can be a mere factoid at times, when one looks at the development of 3rd world nations, it becomes alarmingly prominent. The 3rd world desires one thing more than others: to have a standard of living equal to that of the first. Especially upon gaining that first taste of 1st world living, their desire increases exponentially. They want to drive a new car, watch MTV, and drink a cold Coke in their very own house. And who could blame them? The problem with this is the model that the 1st world nations, especially the United States, have set for this mode of consumption. China has begun to emulate this form of consumption, and it could have dire consequences. For one example, the per-captia household size in China is steadily decreasing, from 4.5 persons per house in 1985 to 3.5 in 2000, and on track to be 2.7 by 2015. With the dream of everyone owning their own home, even though their population growth is near zero they are projected to add 126 millions new households in the next 10 years (more than the total number of households in the United States). If you also add in the number of per capita cars that the United States has which China would like to acquire and the other accoutrements that make up a “1st work lifestyle,” the world is unable to support such a large number of people living as we do. This has caused a deal of alarm, as the two major economic powerhouses will quite possibly become competitors in the resource market.

How can we deny them the chance to become as great as us? To suppress the world as we extend our own legacy is shortsighted, and will not have a good ending. They look to the 1st world as the benchmark of standard of living, including consumption patterns. They could very easily point to the United States and say, "Look, you did whatever it took to grow into what you are now ... now it's our turn. You have no moral authority to tell us otherwise, so be gone." However, if the 5.8 billion other people in the world started acting like Americans, the world would fall far beyond our poor power to compensate for the destruction. Someone has to take a stand somewhere and try to divert the river from its present course. While we do not have the right to tell them not to grow, there should be some sense of duty that we need to advise them how we have destroyed our own soil, water, and air. We grew; we industrialized during a very primitive time, environmentally wise, and are only now being to see the consequences. People then did not know about greenhouse gases, CFCs, the fragility of ecosystems, the dangers that strip-mining and clear-cutting have to the greater environment (agriculture and urban life included). Even as late as the 50s companies were pouring mercury into the oceans by the tons. DDT was legal into the 70s. Now that is not to be used as an excuse for our growth while other nations lingered, nor is it an excuse for our current environmental problems. Environmental science has always lagged behind economic prosperity; it wasn't considered a viable problem/concern until now.

Now must the introspection turn inward. If we cannot forbid them to grow, but the world cannot sustain the whole planet consuming as we do now, where do we tread? Advising is a credible solution, but if the 1st world nations are to provide a positive role-model, a co-creator of solutions to problems both of our own making and others following, there are serious issues that need to be addressed. And I think that these issues have not been pushed to the forefront as ardently until China clamored upon the global stage to stand next to us. Only then, with their shadow looming over the economic, social, and environmental horizon could we awake from our complicity as the world’s head honcho that we’ve held for 50 years. Only then could we look at our reflection, magnified five times, and see what we would look like should we continue down this road. And this is a good thing, as Americans are unwilling to look at these issues when it is at their convenience. But the competition is driving these points home, and opening eyes to the fact that solutions need answering. Thank you China.