Showing posts with label china. Show all posts
Showing posts with label china. Show all posts

Friday, 1 November 2013

Poultry markets in China 'are vast bird flu reservoir'

Poultry markets in China 'are vast bird flu reservoir'

Live poultry market

Related Stories

Closing live poultry markets in China dramatically curtailed the spread of a novel strain of bird flu this year, according to an analysis.
The report, published in the Lancet, showed shutting the markets cut the number of new cases of H7N9 bird flu by 97%.
It said the future of the markets, a millennia-old culture in China, needed to be reassessed.
Experts said the markets can become a reservoir of viruses.
There have been 137 cases of H7N9 bird flu and 45 deaths, according to the World Health Organization.
However, most were in the months immediately after the virus was found to be moving from infecting animals to people.
'Robust evidence' Live poultry markets rapidly became linked with the outbreak. Nearly 800 markets were then shut across Shanghai, Hangzhou, Huzhou, and Nanjing.
It allowed scientists to analyse the role of the markets in the spread of the virus.
Dr Benjamin Cowling, one of the researchers at the University of Hong Kong, said: "Our findings confirm that live poultry market closure is a highly effective intervention to prevent human disease and protect public health.

“Start Quote

The H7N9 virus has continued to circulate and now has the potential to re-emerge in a new outbreak of human disease this winter”
End Quote Dr Benjamin Cowling University of Hong Kong
"Without this robust evidence, policymakers would struggle to justify further closures of live poultry markets because of the millennia-old culture of trading live birds and the potential huge economic loss on the poultry industry in China."
The Lancet report said the markets should be "rapidly" closed in areas where the bird flu emerged and that discussions on the role of the markets "should be renewed".
Guillaume Fournie and Dirk Pfeiffer, of the Royal Veterinary College in the UK, said: "If birds spend a sufficient amount of time in live poultry markets to become infected and transmit the virus to other susceptible birds, sustained virus circulation in the live poultry markets can occur.
"Live poultry markets can then become a permanent source of infection for poultry flocks and for people who are in loose contact with infected poultry."
Two cases of H7N9 bird flu have been reported in October.
Dr Cowling said: "These are the first laboratory-confirmed cases of H7N9 this autumn, five months after the outbreak earlier in 2013.
"This is of great concern because it reveals that the H7N9 virus has continued to circulate and now has the potential to re-emerge in a new outbreak of human disease this winter."

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Friday, 4 November 2011

China to maintain its family planning policy: official






China will adhere to its family planning policy so as to maintain a low reproduction rate, said the country’s family planning chief on Sunday, expected to be the eve of the world’s population reaching seven billion.
“Over-population remains one of the major challenges to social and economic development,” said Li Bin, director of the State Population and Family Planning Commission in an exclusive interview with Xinhua, adding that the population of China will hit 1.45 billion in 2020.
Li said maintaining and improving the existing family planning policy and keeping a low reproduction rate, along with addressing the issues of gender imbalance and an aging population, will be the major tasks in the future. Li’s words came just one day before Oct. 31, the day on which the United Nations estimates the world’s population will reach seven billion.
Zhai Zhenwu, a leading Chinese demographer, said earlier in the past week that China’s family planning policy had postponed this day for at least five years, as it prevented 400 million people from being added to the country’s population, which is 1.34 billion at present.
“The population of China would have hit 1.7 billion had it not been for the family planning policy, and it would have created more difficulties for society,” said Li.

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Chinese New Year...marks the beginning of the Year of the Rabbit

Chinese New Year, marks the beginning of the Year of the Rabbit. But for the millions of individual rabbits and other animals suffering on Chinese fur farms, today is a day like any other.

These gentle animals spend nearly their entire lives crammed in filthy wire cages that are so small the animals are often unable to move more than a few tiny steps. They are born and raised to die at the hands of workers who kill them using methods — such as neck-breaking, suffocation, poisoning, and electrocution — that keep the rabbits' skin intact so that it can be sold. The skin of rabbits who are not fortunate enough to die instantly is often ripped from their bodies while they are still conscious.


Why are these animals subjected to such cruelty and abuse? It's all done in the name of fashion!

Millions of individual animals are killed each year for the clothing industry — and more than half the fur used in the U.S. comes from China. PETA is convincing leading retailers and designers around the world to eliminate fur and exotic-animal skins from their clothing lines, and top designers — including Stella McCartney, Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, and Liz Claiborne — are setting fashion trends without using any skins.

Even though she knows about the suffering that's behind every fur-trimmed coat, hat, and bag, Donna Karan continues to use fur in her collections. Even footage like petas has failed to convince her to remove fur from her clothing lines.

PETA is leading the fight to save animals through our eye-opening campaigns against retailers and designers — such as Donna Karan — who still use animal skins. We are on the front lines in the fight to convince the fashion industry that compassion is the fashion — and we're winning! Our affiliate PETA Asia is also on the ground fighting in China. But our work would not be possible without the support of members like you.



With kind regards,

Ingrid E. Newkirk
President

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Rare earth: The New Great Game

Rare earth: The New Great Game

Post categories: , , ,

Paul Mason | 14:57 UK time, Wednesday, 18 November 2009

The rare earth story goes to the heart of China's relationship with the West - not just that, but to the heart of the West's inability to understand China.

It is a complicated story, involving a whole chunk of the Periodic Table, high secrecy, patent battles and conspiracy theory.

But it boils down to this - 97% of the specialist metals that are crucial to green technology are currently mined in China.

China is already limiting exports and has plans to limit them some more. As a result much of the hi-tech metals industry is also moving to China.

As you can see in my film for Newsnight:


First the science.

There are 17 rare earth metals; they have got their own special bit of the Periodic Table.

In nature they are mainly found clumped together underground in specific types of rock and ore, so they have to be separated.

It takes a large quantity of rock to make a tiny quantity of rare earth. And the rock can often be radioactive. For now just try and remember two elements - Lanthanum and Neodymium.

In the early 1980s a US company called Ovonics perfected a rechargeable battery using rare earth metals that would form the basis of a whole branch of experimentation in electric and hybrid cars.

For geeks, the battery is a Nickel Metal Hydride battery (NiMH) and uses, primarily, Lanthanum.

But remember the name Ovonics. The firm formed a JV with General Motors, ceding 60% ownership to the car giant.

Meanwhile in 1982 General Motors discovered a new compound that could make cheap, highly effective, permanent magnets, again using a rare earth - in this case Neodymium.

Again for geeks - the nomenclature is a Neodimium-Iron-Boron magnet (NdFeB).

The primary effort at turning science into commercial technology here took place in the United States, with GM at the hub.

In parallel, these scientists were putting in place the key technologies for green capitalism:

• battery powered cars would become crucial in the effort to wean us off the petrol engine and;

• permanent magnets are a crucial component in almost any gadget that moves or sees or is guided by a computer.

And both technologies rely on rare earth metals.

Now the geology.

As far as we know there is rare earth ore in California, Canada, South Africa, Brazil, Vietnam and Australia. There's even some in Greenland.

But the mother lode is sitting under the mountains 50km (30 miles) north of the Inner Mongolian city of Baotou, in the Bayan Obo mine.

In addition to Bayan Obo, China has also found massive deposits in Sichuan.

As Deng Xiao Ping presciently commented, at a time when electric cars and wind power seemed like ecotopian wet dreams: "Arabia has oil, China has rare earth".

The story of how China seized a stranglehold on the ore supply and then large parts of the metallurgy is a modern epic.

"Either by stupidity or design" says one industry insider, "the Chinese flooded the market in the mid 1990s and collapsed the price. Almost everybody else went out of business".

For the purposes of today, there are three big potential sources of rare earth outside China - in California, Canada and Australia.

The Californian mine has not produced since 1998, the Australian mine was set to start production in 2011 but has just lost its financing and the Canadian mine likewise is aiming at 2011. Together their annual production could amount to one third of China's.

Each of these projects has been hampered by lack of finance, particularly since the financial collapse of 2008. Some industry voices say the danger of China flooding the market again, making the mines uneconomic, means only a strategic rather than pure economic view makes them viable.

So with the doubling of demand and the collapse of non-Chinese supply, China ended up with 97% of the ore market.

But as the industry for processing the metal and making products out of it developed rapidly in the late 1990s and this decade, China has also managed to bring much of that on-shore as well.

In addition to producing nearly all the rare earth metals, companies operating in China consumes 60% of the stuff.

How has it achieved this? First by relentless state-backed focus.

If you do a web search for the scientific papers on rare earth, a lot of Chinese results come back. China's metallurgy industry flourished while the West's declined.

But increasingly China has started to pare back exports. It places an export tax on rare earth and a quota. In each of the last two years the quota has been shrunk by 20%.

There is of course, this being China, a flourishing black market. In addition to the 35,000 tonnes officially exported, another 20,000 tonnes were somehow consumed outside China.

There is also endemic illegal mining of the stuff in the Chinese deserts. This export limit is an overt signal to producers of rare earth products that, to ensure supply, they need to move production into the People's Republic of China.

Now, in addition to the export restrictions so far, another problem is looming. China's demand is predicted to equal the entire Chinese supply by 2012.

In a recently released - but not published in the West - draft report, Rare Earths Industry Development Plan 2009-2015, the Chinese government pondered a complete ban on five heavy rare earth elements and a cap on exports at the current level (35,000 tonnes).

Officials later downplayed this, reminding journalists that since "no-one wants to give up profits" the quotas are rarely enforced. However, if they were enforced - ie if smuggling was stopped - it would be a big problem.

Unless the non-Chinese mines ramp up production, there will be a shortage outside China. So Western companies who want to manufacture have, increasingly, got to move onto the Chinese mainland.

As Dr Ian Higgins of the Birkenhead rare earth firm Less Common Metals told Newsnight:

"What you're going to get is no opportunity for manufacturing outside of China. And it just depends how far you think it's acceptable to take this policy. Somewhere along the line do we say 'yes, the world does need some strategic control in terms of manufacturing these materials'?"

Now to the reasons why this is such a problem for the rest of us.

The wind farm and the hybrid car - the two key technologies in the transition to green energy use - are completely reliant on rare earths.

There is about a tonne of rare earth magnets in a wind turbine and about 2kg of Neodymium in the rechargeable battery of a Toyota Prius, plus another kilogram or so of Lanthanum and Praeseodimium in the drive train up the front.

(For those whose focus is more on blowing people to smithereens, it is also disconcerting that guided munitions such as the US's JDam bomb cannot function without rare earth magnets.)

Now to the response of the two big manufacturing powers outside China - the US and Japan. How have they coped with this complex problem of rising new technology creating a resource monopoly for China?

In summary, very differently.

Japan's car manufacturers jumped into the electronic vehicle game early. As a result a joint venture between Toyota and Panasonic is the world's leading manufacturer of rechargeable NiMH batteries.

Likewise on the magnet front, again largely due to the foresight of Toyota and its ilk, Japan makes the majority of the the Neo magnets that are not made in China.

Japanese companies hold an unspecified stockpile of the key materials. In addition Toyota has become the first car maker to own a mine - it has set up a rare earth mine in Vietnam which will solely produce for its car plants.

In addition, according to The Times newspaper, about 20% of all Japanese rare earth imports are black market. One Japanese offical told The Times:

"If the Chinese export quota limits were the reality of what comes into Japan each year, we would be even more worried than we already are."

Now what you can say about Japan's attitude to rare earth is that it is canny. The state and major companies are aligned, they're combining geo-politics with realpolitik up to - if The Times is correct - the point of tolerating a black market.

They have, in the process, gained the best part of a decade's head start on the West in cleantech cars. And, though they are reliant on China for rare earth, they have effectively pulled China into an Asia-centric rare earth economy.

Contrast this with the US. It was not just the free market that closed the Mountain Pass mine in California, but environmental concerns about radiation.

But for whatever reason the US allowed its own rare earth source - the second largest in the world - to go out of business.

Next, the rare earth magnet business. In 1996, GM sold its magnet business, Magnequench, to a Chinese-led consortium. It then moved large parts of its Neo magnet production operations to China.

Magnequench has now been taken over by a joint Chinese-Canadian business, but the bulk of its operations remain in China.

There is a large literature of political claim and counterclaim over this.

Next the rare earth battery business.

In the late 1990s GM famously scrapped its work on the EV1 plug in car and crushed all known models out in the desert.

It sold Ovonics, together with the patents for the key battery technologies, to Chevron/Texaco - an oil company - which successfully sued Toyota to maintain intellectual property rights over of the technology.

The resulting company was named Cobasys. During its period of ownership by Chevron it failed to produce NiMH batteries in large numbers. A highly polemical account of this can be found in the Sony Pictures film Who Killed The Electric Car?

In 2004, a protracted legal dispute between Cobasys and Toyota/Panasonic was resolved by the Japanese firms agreeing to pay Cobasys about $30m and also royalties on the batteries sold in America out to 2013.

As a result of the legal settlement the battery situation in the US is beginning to free up, but the legal battle leaves those promoting hybrids - and their next-generation development, the plug-in hybrid - rueing their dependence on non-US manufactured NiMH batteries.

Sherry Boschert, author of a book on electric cars, wrote in 2007: "It's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline.

"Or it's possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles."

Cobasys has now been sold to a JV between Samsung and Bosch, which specialises in the rival Li-Ion battery (which is not so rare earth dependent).

What matters, in the long-run, is that the US lost any kind of lead in electric car battery manufacturing and left the Japanese complex of Toyota, Panasonic and Sanyo as the NiMH battery superpower.

It has also taken a major bet on Li-Ion technology which some commentators doubt is wise.

Meanwhile, when Panasonic and Sanyo merged, China's competition regulator this year ordered these two Japanese companies to divest part of their rare earth battery business.

There are no prizes for guessing which country's cash rich state-backed companies will be queuing to take this division off their hands.

Stepping back to see the bigger picture: in little more than two decades China has achieved absolute dominance in the raw materials side of rare earth and forced much of the manufacturing industry to move to China.

Its coming export restrictions will force more of this, but will probably also stimulate non-Chinese raw material production as the price rises.

In the process China has acquired key tech transfers, as is its stated aim under the so-called 863 Program.

And, as a byproduct of US corporate decision making, the China-Japan axis has emerged as the centre of the rare earth economy.

The US is now so worried about all this that in the National Defense Act 2010 there is for the first time a whole section requiring the government to launch an urgent probe into the impact of rare earth dependence on national security.

But for years US governments - both in the Clinton and Bush eras - have stated they have no problem with the transfer of rare earth jobs, plants and science to China.

The whole story reveals a mismatch between Western and Asian ways of doing business, and of perceptions.

President Barack Obama has now, reportedly, accepted there will be a global resource crunch within a decade, led by peak oil.

But the Chinese and Japanese governments and industrial elites have been operating on a resource agenda for the past decade. China is demonstrably using foreign policy to gain direct access to supplies of raw materials.

When the Afghan war began, and the Russian involvement in the "Stans", it became common to talk about Central Asia being the "New Great Game" for the warring superpowers.

But the real new Great Game is being played in the swamps of the Niger Delta, on the borders of Colombia-Venezuela, in the metal mines of the DRC and now in the rare earth mines of the world.

For example, China attempted to buy 51% of the Australian rare earth mine, but pulled out in September when the Australian government vetoed this.

For decades US foreign policy, and much of the Western world behind it, has focused on security of supply of oil from the Middle East.

Chinese policy - foreign, industrial and commercial - now centres on finding and securing supplies not just of oil but of all major natural resources needed by an economy developing at 9% for the rest of the century.

The old, oil-based policy shaped the world; the rise of freemarket capitalism after 1989 became possible because no rival powers existed that could fragment the world economy and challenge US dominance; the new, multi-resource based policy of China (together with Japan and South Korea) is what is reshaping the world.

It has put roads through Kenya, and sent Chinese engineers into the swamps of West Africa and the airless space of the Andean metal mines.

As Asia powers out of the recession it is enchancing the prestige of a model based on resource monopolies, giant integrated manufacturing empires, overt black-marketeering and state directed industrial policy.

The FT's Martin Wolf reminds us we are stacking up a potentially huge conflict between the US and China over trade and currency - and these two issues are what dominate the thinking of free-market, Western-trained economists when they think of China.

But it seems to me that the West has been largely blindsided by the growing importance of resource strategy.

While the West was thinking about one thing, the big Asian industrial powers were thinking about another

Sunday, 13 December 2009

AUSTRALIA has appealed to China

Heat on China to break impasse at Copenhagen

AUSTRALIA has appealed to China to step up to the leadership role expected of a global superpower, as a standoff between the US and China deadlocked the Copenhagen climate change talks.

The 48 environment ministers already in Copenhagen were meeting away from the conference centre yesterday to consider a political deal for two separate treaties.

Kevin Rudd has been hitting the phones to try to secure a political-level deal, speaking with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and developing-nation leaders Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and PNG Prime Minister Michael Somare.

The fate of the talks now lies with the ministers and ultimately with the 110 leaders who arrive in the Danish capital by the end of the week, to overcome entrenched positions, particularly those held by the two superpowers, which are the world's two biggest greenhouse emitters.

According to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, who will be joined in Copenhagen by the Prime Minister on Wednesday, it will involve China playing a new role on the global stage.

"The world is looking to China for leadership, just as the world looks to the US for leadership, and for China to play a constructive role," Senator Wong said.

China and other developing nations were yesterday maintaining the tough stance they had taken in these negotiations from the start. They argue that developed nations owe a "carbon debt" to the developing world for emissions already in the atmosphere and that the existing international negotiating mandate does not require developing countries - even China, the world's largest emitter - to make binding emission-reduction targets that can be internationally checked.

But the US, Australia, the European Union and other developed nations have said a draft agreement from the conference negotiations reflecting that stance is totally unacceptable and no basis for any Copenhagen deal.

US chief negotiator Todd Stern said: "The United States is not going to do a deal without major developing countries stepping up."

Senator Wong said such a result would not deliver the environmental outcome that was the whole point of the Copenhagen talks.

The developed countries point out that 97 per cent of the growth in greenhouse gases between now and 2030 will come from the developing world, with China contributing about half of that. Erwin Jackson of Australian think tank The Climate Institute said leaving one of the world's biggest emitters out of a new treaty would be fatal.

"Without a treaty that fairly covers all major emitters, global action will be undermined and political support would collapse into a meaningless pledge and review system," he said.

Environment ministers are now discussing a new agreement under the Kyoto Protocol for developed countries and an agreement to develop another treaty that would be signed by the US, which has said it will not join Kyoto, and developing nations including India and China. But the plan is far from agreed.

One issue at the heart of the standoff is China's refusal to allow its domestic emission-reduction efforts to be internationally monitored and verified - a stance the US has said is a deal-breaker and which is a primary focus of US-Chinese bilateral talks in Copenhagen.

China's chief climate-change negotiator, Su Wei, was yesterday adamant China would do its own checking. "We have robust monitoring and evaluation within our country and it can be fully trusted - and the actions and measures that we will take we will put in our national report (to the UN)," he said.

India's Environment Minister, Jairan Ramesh, backed China's stance that only emission cuts paid for by developed-country money should be internationally verified, saying India's voluntary domestic action was its own business.

Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard said it was at least positive the US and China were still negotiating. "I can think of no time where the involvement and discussion between China and the United States and the way that they contribute have been more constructive, and that I take as a good sign, although there are differences of opinion definitely," Ms Hedegaard said.

Another standoff is over the developing world's demands that rich nations offer more money to help them reduce emissions and also offer much deeper emission-reduction targets.

UN convention on climate change executive secretary Yvo de Boer said deeper targets could also be in the self-interest of developed countries.

Featured post

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants 13 October 2015   From the section Scotland Image copyright Thinkstock Image ca...