SANTA CLAUS IS CHINESE

Why China Is Rising and the United States Is Declining

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update62.htm

by Lester R. Brown

I know Santa Claus is Chinese because each Christmas morning after all the gifts are unwrapped and things settle down I systematically go through the presents to see where they are made. The results are almost always the same: roughly 70 percent are from China. After some research, it seems that my one-family survey is representative of the country as a whole.

Let’s start with toys. Some 80 percent of the toys sold in the United States–from Barbie dolls to video games–are made in China. Talking toys that speak English learned the language from Chinese workers. Electronic goods–from Apple’s iPod to Microsoft’s Xbox–are made in China. Clothing–from the latest cashmere sweaters to gym suits–is also likely to have a “Made in China” label.

The Christmas tree itself may come from China. While real Christmas trees are grown in every state in the United States and are marketed locally, many families now gather around artificial Christmas trees. Eight out of every 10 artificial Christmas trees sold in the United States are made in China. Last year Americans spent over $130 million on plastic Christmas trees from China.

This year Americans will spend over $1 billion on Christmas ornaments from China. And in perhaps the greatest irony of all, even nativity scenes are made in China. Last year Americans spent more than $39 million buying nativity scenes shipped in from the East. China’s success in attracting foreign investment capital and mobilizing this huge workforce has made it the workshop of the world.

That the U.S. Christmas is made in China is a metaphor for a far deeper set of economic issues affecting the United States. Today Christmas is celebrated in both the United States and China–but for different reasons and with far different economic consequences. For the Chinese, the manufacturing bonanza means record profits, rising incomes, and, in a society where people save some 40 percent of their income, a sharp jump in savings. In the United States, Christmas shopping expenditures, headed for another record high this year, contribute to rising credit card debt and a soaring trade deficit.

Underneath the American Christmas spirit and good cheer is a debt-laden society that appears to have lost its way, marred in the quicksand of consumerism. As a society, we seem to have forgotten how to Read the rest of this entry »

A provocative new study by UC Davis Sustainable Agriculture and Research department suggests that buying local food may not be such a slam dunk for the environment after all. Rather than summarize the info, I’ll point you to the New York Times, whose writers do a little better job than yours truly: IF IT’S FRESH AND LOCAL, IS IS ALWAYS GREENER?

Much of the questions raised are ones that I’ve leveled at my local beef-eating eco-friends in the past. Nothing new there. Two great items I’d failed to consider are:

1. If you drive to the store/farmer’s market multiple times per week for fresh, local food, you’re negating your eco-gains through wasted gas. Yes, even if you’re driving a Prius.

2. Buying from a farmer’s market stall whose farmer drove in a handful of produce in a beat up old truck means your per-calorie carbon footprint is vastly greater than if you’d purchased items from thousands of miles away that arrived in a container, as the per-item carbon count is vastly reduced for bulk shipped items.

Interesting questions that need to be asked. Interesting ideas to ponder. Great article. One thing it will accomplish, hopefully, will be to reduce, even just a little, that look of smugness found all too often on the “Whole Foods/Prius” crowd (I’m generalizing of course. I don’t support Whole Foods, but I’d drive a Prius if someone gifted it to me. However, Toyota is a very eco-unfriendly company, on the whole - which is why I drive a Volvo, a company dedicated to the goal of a 100% recyclable auto). This smugness does as much damage to the movement toward a sustainable future than an army of Bush/Cheney lawyers.

It’s the holiday season, right? I can bend my fairly rigid “thou shalt not indulge overly much on nonessentials” rule, right? Okay, you’re right. I really shouldn’t. We are, after all, consuming the earth right out from beneath, above and around us.

However.

However, I’m a bit cold. I don’t have a good warm jacket. Well, I didn’t until last week when I found this amazing creation from Rag & Bone at Arboretum in Healdsburg. At over $500, it’s not Made in China cheap. In fact, it isn’t made in China. It’s handmade in New York state by a very unique company (check this Men’s Vogue article for info on how Rag & Bone resurrected a North Carolina factory town). While the ingredients aren’t organic, the fact that they weren’t shipped from India to be assembled in China to be flown to the USA for consumption means a lot to me.

So, the question is: Is it better to have an organic product or one that meets ethical standards? That is, do I buy the horribly made Same Underneath (stay away from this company - they even buy cheap zippers, a BIG sign that quality is third rate at best) coat that is made from organic cotton, but assembled in China before being flown back to the USA, racking up massive aviation fuel demerits in the process … or do I pick up the coat made by a company who believes in stimulating local economies, paying more than fair wages and creating clothing that will last for years, obviating the need for more consumption down the road?

While you ponder this, I’ll talk a bit more about my new favorite thing. A classic hunting jacket, it has ‘bird’ pockets in front and back, meaning it can carry a whole lot of extra items in a very discrete fashion. No, I’m not carrying drugs or guns, but a big pet peeve of mine is how many coat pockets BULGE rather unsexily when the smallest items are inserted - not so with this baby. Handmade, expertly stitched, beautifully lined . . . I’ll have to take some pictures to show you guys what you’re missing.

Head to Arboretum (or just call them?) to grab this beauty. I noticed they had one left (size 40?). Just north of San Francisco, this shop is far and away the most extensive ‘ethical’ and/or ‘eco’ fashion boutique I’ve come across anywhere in the States.

Yes, that’s me in the picture above, standing in front of a Helen Garber painting (genius painter, tip-top person). As I’m freshly shaven (I only shave every two weeks or so as this cuts down on razor use and we all know how mining for razor metals depletes the earth, right? See THIS POST for more info on my shaving obsession.), I did my best in photoshop to simulate some growth. Some of you may notice the doctoring, likely only those of you who work with photo manipulation professionally.

“We don’t want the dollar to collapse instead of doing something good for Opec”. - Saudi Prince Saud Al-Faisal. See below. This kind of thing has to make you nervous if you have any savings in the dollar or U.S. stocks. I’m telling you, it’s not that hard to open a Swiss bank account (or so I’m told-if anyone out there wants to open one for me, go right ahead.)
SOURCE

Saudi minister warns of dollar collapseSaturday, 17th November 2007

The dollar could collapse if Opec officially admits considering changing the pricing of oil into alternative currencies such as the euro, the Saudi Arabian foreign minister has warned.

Prince Saud Al-Faisal was overheard ruling out a proposal from Iran and Venezuela to discuss pricing crude in a private meeting at the oil cartel’s conference.

In an embarrassing blunder at the meeting in Riyadh, ministers’ microphones were not cut off during a key closed meeting, and Prince Al-Faisal was heard saying: “My feeling is that the mere mention that the Opec countries are studying the issue of the dollar is itself going to have an impact that endangers the interests of the countries. “There will be journalists who will seize on this point and we don’t want the dollar to collapse instead of doing something good for Opec.”

After around 40 minutes press officials cut off the feed, which had been accidentally broadcast to the press room.

Prince Al-Faisal added: “This is not new. We have done this in the past: decide to study something without putting down on paper that we are going to study it so that we avoid any implication that will bring adverse effects on our countries’ finances.”

Iran and Venezuela have argued that the meeting’s final communique should voice concern about the level of the dollar, which has recently fallen to new record lows against the euro. They are pushing for oil to be denominated against a basket of currencies.

The greenback also weakened slightly against the pound, although sterling’s own recent weakness has pushed it down from $2.10 to $2.0457 during the week.

Nigerian finance minister Shamsuddeen Usman said that Opec could declare in the communique that: “While underlining our concern for the continued depreciation of the dollar and its adverse impact on our revenues, we instruct our finance ministers to study the issue exhaustively and advise us on ways to safeguard the purchasing power of our revenues, of our members’ revenues.”

Chancellor Alistair Darling will today urge his fellow finance ministers at a major G20 summit to increase investment in oil production and refinement.

It’s fascinating to watch the way the numbers jump up and down. For example, last week the Bush administration’s ‘analysts’ announced that the U.S. had unexpectedly large oil reserves. Accordingly, oil prices droppe d. Not 48 hours later, it comes out that, in reality, the U.S. reserves are smaller than expected. Oil prices went back up, but not quite as much. What’s more, the initial news helped steady the stock market while the ‘revision’ had little impact. Here’s the detailed rundown on that bit of slipperiness: LINK

TODAY, we don’t have to wait 48 hours to watch the numbers dance. Today, we can watch the fun in real time! Below are three links. I’ll intro each one. For kicks, you should open each one in a different browser tab so you can switch back and forth.

1. ONE BBC NEWS October 25 Here we have a BBC News report from 25. October which cites the U.S. Comerce Department as stating that new home sales are down 23% in September vs. one year ago and 8% vs. the prior month’s. Of course, this is great news for the environment as newly built homes are unnecessary in a nation with more than sufficient existing housing. Unless, of course, all new home construction followed George Monbiot’s absolutely achievable carbon-reduction plan. But I digress. The article is brief, mentioning that this drastic downturn could, of course, fuel a big fat recession in the U.S..

2. Bloomberg Article #1 October 25 This one went up about 8:00AM PST, I believe. Bloomberg’s writer reports that sales of new U.S. homes are probably down to the lowest level in a decade. Probably. First time I’ve ever seen that word used in a Bloomberg headline. Leaves a little room for restatement, right?

3. Bloomberg Article #2 October 25 Two hours later, the ‘real’ numbers are out, and guess what? The U.S. Commerce Department NOW says new home sales went UP in September by almost 5%!!! Hoorah! BOOM BAM! No recession! No worries! What the fuck do those Brits know, anyway? Sales down 23%??? No sir. That was a computer glitch. No, they’re actually up. Oh, and by the way, we’ve revised the sales data for the August DOWNWARD, but who cares about August, baby? It’s September we’re talking about and September was nothing but roses!Go figure. The Dow is still off on rising oil prices, but just imagine if the Commerce Department had BAD news. We’d be in for a rough day on Wall Street. I’m going to state, very clearly and right now, that at some point in the coming months, September 2007 new home sales numbers will be revised and will show a less rosy outlook. However, at that point, nobody will care. Our government is fudging numbers left and right and up and down. It’s called delaying the inevitable meltdown. Until after we hit Iran. Until after October 2008, if possible (unlikely). Before you come to the conclusion that I’m bashing Republicans only, I’m fully aware that Democrats can call bullshit on this at any time. But they’re keeping their mouths zipped, for a whole lot of what should be obvious reasons.

In other news, it’s my son Justice’s birthday! He’s FIVE! Hoorah!! I love, love, love that boy.

It’s no longer a matter of when oil hits $100/barrel, but when (as of this writing, it sits at an all-time record $90). So why not celebrate the occasion?

I propose we have an international day of celebration (likely next week), a GRAND OIL PARTY, when prices hit triple digits. You bring the beer, I’ll bring the rum, my Sonoma County neighbors will bring the wine. It’ll be a damned fine time. We’ll meet at my house, then go back to our respective countries to spread the joy.

Why, you ask, should we be celebrating something that, when combined with the fading U.S. dollar, will usher in a massive global recession? BECAUSE I NEED AN EXCUSE TO PAR-TAY!! Okay, that’s not it. Because now we know, absolutely and fo’ sho’, that Peak Oil is upon us. The ties that bind us to petroleum are now to be thrown off once and for all. It will be an ugly transition (Read THIS BOOK to get a solid picture of this), but one that will ultimately bring humanity closer to a sustainable future.

IT’S THE END OF THE (OIL-FUELED) WORLD AS WE KNOW IT, AND I FEEL LIKE FINE!

Okay. Seriously. Wait for the ticker to read $100 and then come on over. I’ll have juice and tea for the non-drinkers (I’m usually only good for one drink, if that, so don’t think I’ll be judging you if you don’t imbibe. Andi makes amazing Dark & Stormy’s however . . .)

To recap -

WHAT: GRAND OIL PARTY

WHEN: THE MOMENT NYMEX CRUDE FUTURES REACH $100 (next week?)

WHERE: FIRST MY HOUSE, THEN THE WORLD! (Contact me for location info)

Oh, and BRAD and ANGELINA . . .I know you’re getting the short end of the stick from everyone these days, but you’re both still on my SuperStarsWhoGiveADamn A Team. You’re totally invited. Bring the kids as they’ll love my boy, Justice.

Now go forth and SPREAD THE WORD!!! IT’S THE PARTY OF THE DECADE!!!!

*Republicans: Do forgive the image. I’m absolutely non-partisan, but it fits the theme of the post too well.

(Coming Soon: $100 OIL “WHEN WILL IT HIT” POOL. $10/entry. Winner take all!)

Thanks, once again, to Larry O of Entermodal for passing along a solid article:

“EXCESS DISGUISED AS LESS”

This one, penned by Akiko Busch, asks that we look closely at our consumer purchasing habits, especially those of us who consider ourselves ‘green’. Could it be that we’re fooling ourselves into thinking we’ve actually changed our behavior? Is our addiction somehow uglier than those who aren’t ’sustainability-minded’ because ours is so much more hypocritical?

From the article: “Few of us will deny that this is a time of consumer excess and that the cycle of bloated consumption and grievous waste is part of our national profile. But as individuals, we are unwilling to cop to our own participation in it. The health of our economy might depend upon our constant consumption of goods, but it’s not an identity we much like. It implicates us in something—not exactly a conspiracy, but at least a kind of collusion between voracious consumer appetite and the marketers who depend upon it. As the writer and conservationist Wendell Berry describes the situation: “It is the fault of an economy that is wasteful from top to bottom—a symbiosis of unlimited greed at the top and a lazy, passive, and self-indulgent consumptiveness at the bottom—and all of us are involved in it.” “

It’s a nice read. I urge you to take two minutes out of your day to give it a scan.

[tags]consumerism, wal-mart[/tags]

This is exciting! My first fashion review!

My ever-perfect wife Andi (of the nation’s premier ethical-apparel store, Arboretum) brought home to me a new pair of black pants by Edun. Owned by the ever-righteous Bono, Edun is, according to its website, “founded on the premise of trade, not aid as a means of building sustainable communities. The company works on a micro-level to help build the skill sets of the factories where the clothes are produced.”

I own a few Edun pieces, but never before had I sported the pants (Omega Twill Chinos), as I’m a Rag & Bone man to the core (my all-time favorite men’s line - also available at Arboretum, btw). And while I love you, Bono, these pants pretty much suck hard. The fit is fine for a skinny bastard like me, but two massive complaints:

UNO: No belt loops. While this is absolutely rad in a pair of women’s pants, it’s a joke for men. Men are generally bigger (though at 6′1″/165 I’m not exactly massive) and fluctuate in actual pounds more than do women. This means we need belts to make adjustments for those days when our bowel movements are exceedingly large. Without a belt loop, I have days where they fit just right and others where I can’t wear them.

DOS: The front “pockets” are laughable! They’re deep enough to hold six, maybe seven Tic Tacs. Try putting a mobile phone or a money clip in there and you’re bound to be frustrated. After some work, I did manage to squeeze my money clip in, but it came popping out whenever I sat down. Oddly enough, shallow front pockets are another feature commonly found in women’s pants. I suspect women are quite concerned with maintaining nice lines in front. Most men need those pockets to put things in. Hence the pocket in the first place. I won’t even get into the ‘flying wings’ that are the back pocket flaps. When I have time I’m going to unstitch them by hand.

There are darned good reasons clothes are built differently for boys and girls. The reason is called gender-differentiated ergonomic requirements. Whoever is designing for Edun seems to live in a fantasy world where men and women have identical builds and social requirements.

Bono, if you’re out there, I’m rooting for your line. Your wife’s line. I’m rooting for just about everything you do. I highly respect the noble mission that you’ve set out to achieve with the Edun line. The Africa-to-Africa production cycle is fantastic.

I’m sure my wife and her partner are going to be aghast that I’ve given a less than glowing review to a product they carry. However, my duty is to be honest. And, honestly, these pants are shite. Bono - pick up the phone and call Rag & Bone. Maybe they can loan out their designer.

[tags]africa, arboretum, bono, clothing, pants, rag & bone, bono[/tags]

The teens, they aren’t buying into the ‘green thing’, but they sure are BUYING!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/homestyle/07/31/student.luxury.ap/index.html

Given that they are the next gen voters, if they’re lost, we’re lost.

Thanks to Gail, whose political blog (LINK) is amazing.

Hopefully, you’ve already picked up Monbiot’s book, “HEAT: How to Stop the Planet Burning” (LINK) as it may well be the very best climate change-related text out there, in terms of showing exactly what we can to do make 90% reductions in the next 30 years. I challenge you to find someone else who presents actual solutions.

In Monbiot’s latest post, he details once again a concept I’ve been trying to get across for a long time: We must STOP BUYING SHIT. Instead, we tell ourselves it’s okay to consume like mad, so long as the product is ‘green’. Do you agree? No?
LINK TO MONBIOT’S SITE

Eco-junk

Posted July 24, 2007

GREEN CONSUMERISM WILL NOT SAVE THE BIOSPHERE

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 24th July 2007

It wasn’t meant to happen like this. The climate scientists told us that our winters would become wetter and our summers drier. So I can’t claim that these floods were caused by climate change, or are even consistent with the models. But, like the ghost of Christmas yet to come, they offer us a glimpse of the possible winter world we’ll inhabit if we don’t sort ourselves out.

With rising sea levels and more winter rain (and remember that when the trees are dormant and the soils saturated there are fewer places for the rain to go) all it will take is a freshwater flood to coincide with a high spring tide and we have a formula for full-blown disaster. We have now seen how localised floods can wipe out essential services and overwhelm emergency workers. But this month’s events don’t even register beside some of the predictions now circulating in learned journals(1). Our primary political struggle must be to prevent the break-up of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The only question now worth asking about climate change is how.

Dozens of new books appear to provide an answer: we can save the world by embracing “better, greener lifestyles”. Last week, for example, the Guardian published an extract of the new book by Sheherazade Goldsmith, who is married to the very rich environmentalist Zac, in which she teaches us “to live within nature’s limits”(2). It’s easy: just make your own bread, butter, cheese, jam, chutneys and pickles, keep a milking cow, a few pigs, goats, geese, ducks, chickens, beehives, gardens and orchards. Well, what are you waiting for?

Her book also contains plenty of useful advice, and she comes across as modest, sincere and well-informed. But of lobbying for political change, there is not a word: you can save the planet in your own kitchen – if you have endless time and plenty of land. When I was reading it on the train, another passenger asked me if he could take a look. He flicked through it for a moment then summed up the problem in seven words. “This is for people who don’t work.”

None of this would matter, if the Guardian hadn’t put her photo on the masthead last week, with the promise that she could teach us to go green. The media’s obsession with beauty, wealth and fame blights every issue it touches, but none more so than green politics. There is an inherent conflict between the aspirational lifestyle journalism which makes readers feel better about themselves and sells country kitchens and the central demand of environmentalism: that we should consume less. “None of these changes represents a sacrifice”, Sheherazade tells us. “Being more conscientious isn’t about giving up things.” But it is: if, like her, you own more than one home when others have none.

Uncomfortable as this is for both the media and its advertisers, giving things up is an essential component of going green. A section on ethical shopping in Goldsmith’s book advises us to buy organic, buy seasonal, buy local, buy sustainable, buy recycled. But it says nothing about buying less.

Green consumerism is becoming a pox on the planet. Read the rest of this entry »