Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Using 'State Secrets' Label To Hide Pollution

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the where-sunshine-laws-don't-shine dept.

China 149

eldavojohn writes "More problems have surfaced as people attempt to bring soil pollution problems to light in China. From the article: 'When Pan sued the Hebei Department of Environmental Protection in 2011, he was given access to the environmental impact assessment that the environment ministry claimed it had done in the village. Pan discovered that the assessment, carried out by the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, had names of people who had left the village two decades previously and even a person who had been dead for two years — all "expressing favor" for the project. Pan surveyed 100 people in his village, showing them the purported environmental impact study. The majority of them gave him written statements that declared: "I've never seen this form," according to documents seen by Reuters.' Reuters has also discovered that China uses 'state secrets' labels to hide environmental studies and pollution numbers as well as using strong arm tactics to silence residents attempting to do their own studies."

cancel ×

149 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fantastic ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131397)

another place where environmentalism is being oppressed :(

Predictable Replies (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131691)

Expected replies for China article on /.

1. "It's not like ______ didn't do it before/isn't doing it too."
2. "Why is this news, we expect this from China."
3. "So what, it's their country. We have no right to judge."

Let us embrace such wisdom and apply it consistently, for US/Europe articles too!
No country should bear criticism on Slashdot!
Join me in extending these fallacies EVERYWHERE my brothers and sisters!

Re:Predictable Replies (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131729)

Expected replies for China article on /.

1. "It's not like ______ didn't do it before/isn't doing it too." 2. "Why is this news, we expect this from China." 3. "So what, it's their country. We have no right to judge."

I thought you were just being douchey, but then i read some of the comments below and realized you were spot on! saw lots of #1 mostly.

Re:Predictable Replies (2)

TopSpin (753) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132393)

but then i read some of the comments below and realized you were spot on

I noticed this behavior a few years ago when the Apple+Foxconn stories started to appear. After hunting through the comments of a few of those stories I came up with a comprehensive list of rationalizations [slashdot.org] .

We are comfortable office people steeped in self-loathing. We can equivocate any evil by dismissing criticism as hypocrisy. The fact that in the case of Chinese industry these arguments happen to align with the desire for low cost products produced well outside "the environment" is purely coincidental...

Spoiler Alert! (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132161)

Right back at you though... tomorrow, in remedial English, you and the other kids will have a pop quiz. The answers will all be A, B, C, and D.

Re:Predictable Replies (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132275)

No country should bear criticism on Slashdot!

This is confusing because it feels like sarcasm, yet in the larger context of your comment, it seems like not-sarcasm. Obviously, every country should be criticized for its faults, recognizing the difference between the governed and those who govern. Even in first world democracies, it is _not_ easy to say that the government represents the people's wishes. It is easy to say that the government represents what a majority see as the least worst options for public office, which is not a distinction without a difference.

1. "It's not like ______ didn't do it before/isn't doing it too."

Taking care to be aware of one's own sins, is the first step in helping others improve themselves without at the same time, sounding like a completely self-ignorant twit. Further, such self-awareness can be very valid as a basis for an argument about why certain actions are unwise, and thus may form part of a non-fallacious argument.

2. "Why is this news, we expect this from China."

Apathy never gets anything changed for the better, but often allows change for the worse. Views like this should be challenged, not least of all because without expectations that an entity can do better, there is a great likelihood it won't. I'm not sure how this is a fallacy of any kind, because a fallacy requires some argument. This is a "give up" attitude, and attitudes aren't arguments, thus can't be fallacies.

3. "So what, it's their country. We have no right to judge."

While we may have no right to intervene, there is no reason we cannot judge China's wrongs, just as others, and ourselves, should feel free to judge and point out our wrongs. Without feedback on how you're screwing up, the process of improvement is prolonged. This I could see as a fallacy because it is used as argument against even comment, when really, it should apply only to intervention.

I'm not really sure what you want to see in a discussion of this type of news. A bunch soviet russia jokes? Beowulf clusters? A few links to goatse or tubgirl? A wide-ranging, on-topic discussion is actually healthy, not something to be sneered at.

Re:Predictable Replies (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132805)

Here's how Slashdot works:

Article about US:
1. Provide insightful criticism of US -- get modded Insightful
2. Replies to 1 deflecting to another country modded Troll

Article about almost any other country:
1. Provide insightful criticism of that country -- 50/50 chance of Insightful/Troll
2. Replies to 1 deflecting to US modded Insightful

It seems like only the rational people congregate in the US articles.

Re:Predictable Replies (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132277)

How about this reply:

Between China and India they have, what, somewhere between a third and half the population of the world? Has it occurred to anyone else that between them with their more or less uncontrolled polluting, they're undoing everything that every other industrialized country is doing to reverse global warming?

Re:Predictable Replies (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132459)

From the horse's mouth,

http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/ [worldcoal.org]

And all the envirowhackos are protesting "nukular" while coal usage alone increased 10% between 2010 and 2011.

      7,600,000,000 tons of coal, half mined and burned in China.

So all the bullshit that politicians talk about "limiting Global Warming" is just that - bullshit and hot air. What is even more sad, is the envirowhackos protesting things like Transcanada pipeline (tarsands) while completely ignoring the real problem - coal.

Someone said there is enough oil, gas and coal to turn Earth into another Venus. I guess full steam ahead on that plan!

In 2011 coal was the fastest growing form of energy outside renewables. Its share in global primary energy consumption increased to 30.3% - the highest since 1969.

Re:Predictable Replies (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132821)

Someone said there is enough oil, gas and coal to turn Earth into another Venus.

I think that's outright wrong. There's roughly 80 times as much carbon dioxide in Venus's atmosphere as there is total atmosphere on Earth. That's a lot of carbon. But even if there was enough carbon, there isn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere. We're about two orders of magnitude too short.

Re:Predictable Replies (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132491)

Between China and India they have, what, somewhere between a third and half the population of the world? Has it occurred to anyone else that between them with their more or less uncontrolled polluting, they're undoing everything that every other industrialized country is doing to reverse global warming?

YES. This. Precisely this. Whenever I hear the environmentalists spout their screed about conservation, cutbacks and carbon I want to smack them upside the head for completely ignoring what's going in China and India. They either take the rest of us for complete fools or are fools themselves. Either way, I want nothing to do with them. However, just in case there are some out there reading, riddle me this. The Chinese and Indian governments have already said that they will do essentially nothing on climate change. They want their 100 years of pollution and development and have basically told the environmentalists in the United States and Europe to go f*** themselves. There is zero chance that the Chinese and Indians are going to tell their people, "We know that you want that house with the two car garage, a gas guzzler vehicle and that big ass TV, but we cannot let you have these things because of climate change." They would have a revolution on their hands or what the Chinese call "social instability". So any sacrifices that you greens make here in the United States and Europe are meaningless as regards global temperature rises from greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, you're wasting your time because China and India will never agree to cooperate in any meaningful ways. You stand on principles if you want to, but I'd rather just enjoy what time we have left.

Yet another example (2)

no-body (127863) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132725)

Where the instinctual drive in humans of "caring for others" is overwritten by some other neural plugin, downloadable on many places and then run as religious. illusion, political doctrine, corporate capialistic ideology and alike.

China Using 'State Secrets' Label... (4, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131415)

Gee, welcome to the club.

Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131515)

The US will be suing for patent infringement in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ...

Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131555)

When its the first of the month you suddenly see lots and lots of blacks everywhere. Even in grocery stores and shit like that. You dont see so many blacks at any other time. The first of the month is when all the welfare EBT money goes out. These aren't your considerate educated decent black folk either. Most of them are ghetto as hell. Lots of hateful single mothers with their disruptive undisciplined children and wannabe gangbangers and all that.

But if you notice this you're some kind of bad, terrible horrible person. Sure. For noticing facts. The facts go against the liberal party line you see, which says it is just a skin color difference. Shooting the messenger is easier than changing the facts, you see. SO they have to mod this down.

Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131643)

Why are u complaining about the job creators? Our small business thrives around the first of the month.

Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132565)

"Gee, welcome to the club."

Yes, exactly. Our own government has used the "state secrets" lie to cover much of its own misdoings... why should we be surprised -- much less alarmed -- that China would be doing the same thing?

Hey, fellow Americans! Yes, our country (and especially government) can use a lot of improvement. Let's not be hypocrites, okay?

Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43133199)

Yeah, I mean we only use it to cover up murder, fraud, war crimes. Pollution is an entirely different animal.

And this is surprising how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131419)

When haven't western governments labeled reports and studies as secret to avoid embarassing or otherwise harmful information to reach the public

Re:And this is surprising how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131585)

When haven't western governments labeled reports and studies as secret to avoid embarassing or otherwise harmful information to reach the public

Aside from a few military things, there is almost no harmful information ever. But there is information that makes egotistical politicians look bad.

If there really is a literal Hell, it is stuffed full of politicians, PR people, marketers, and the jack-booted thugs that work for the politicians.

I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (3, Insightful)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131423)

Come on, the issue here isn't abuse of a state secrets process.

The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness. They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power. The only time it comes out is when trying to keep it secret would hurt even more (i.e when a coverup is exposed).

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (2)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131455)

In the long term, the trend of hiding things that threaten their power will likely be a threat to the Party's power.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131899)

In other news the sky is blue, communusm is oppressive, and both the US & PRC governments don't like bad press. Nothing to see here.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131971)

nd both the US & PRC governments don't like bad press

In other news, once again Slashdotters instinctively drag the US into a discussion of China. It's like a really big province of China, right?

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131583)

The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness. They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power. The only time it comes out is when trying to keep it secret would hurt even more (i.e when a coverup is exposed).

That's communism for you, a government of secret influence, hidden authority, and complete deception.

Just like Marx wrote, isn't it? He was all for using opium to delude the masses. And what country went to war to avoid opium? China.

It's no coincidence.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (2)

hoggoth (414195) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131617)

While I agree that a government of secrets and deception is a terrible problem, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You half remember a quote you heard once about Marx and opium and have made up a story to explain your fuzzy recollection instead of taking the barest effort to find out what you are talking about before spouting your uninformed opinion. Go look up Marx and opium right now so that in the future, on this one point, you will no longer sound ignorant.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131815)

Whoosh. Somebody missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of that remark. Maybe I should have added a "Sarcasm" tag.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131887)

"Whoosh" only applies if the joke was actually funny. Work on your delivery.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132149)

Whoosh always applies when somebody takes seriously a facetious remark.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (1, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131831)

Just like Marx wrote, isn't it? He was all for using opium to delude the masses. And what country went to war to avoid opium? China.

Wait, so because China refused opium, they are following Marx by doing the opposite? Seems the US is more Marxist in that regard, with drugs everywhere.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (1)

zrelativity (963547) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131881)

Just like Marx wrote, isn't it? He was all for using opium to delude the masses. And what country went to war to avoid opium? China.

Can you post a reference to this "Marx quote"? You are either trolling or ignorant AC.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132453)

Somebody else missed the sarcasm, eh?

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131903)

Someone must have had their dose of church this morning.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131661)

If anything, the US is following China's lead, as it also corresponds to protecting the corporate worldview as well as its own power fetish. Corporations are People, and they're more equal than the other people (the rest of us).

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131725)

Actually the fact that they actually answered and replied to Pan's query, means that the rule of law is becoming more and more important and developed. If rule of law was not important, the government wouldn't have even replied back, but now they have to give some sort of justification as to why he can't get the data.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132017)

Wait, what? First they gave him faked documents, and now they're giving him the finger. How does this translate to "the rule of law is becoming more and more important and developed"? It's the rule of "lie, even when confronted with the undeniable facts" getting fine tuned.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (5, Interesting)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131819)

They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power.

And this is distinctive from America how? In America, the State Secrets Doctrine has its roots in a wrongful death suit by the widows of some RCA engineers who were working for the US Air Force when they died in a plane crash in 1948. During discovery, the widows sought the accident report. The Air Force said that it contained information vital to national security and would not turn it over. Eventually, the case got to the Supreme Court, and without actually looking at the document, ruled that it could be kept secret. 40 some years later, it was declassified. It contained nothing in it beyond what was publicly known about the project, but it also revealed that the Air Force had negligently failed to install manufacturer recommended heat shields in the engines, among other issues with the plane, and that the engines caught fire leading to the crash.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/383/origin-story?act=2#play [thisamericanlife.org]

So you tell me, is our State Secrets doctrine, the one that Obama has used to prevent people from suing for unlawful detention, unlawful torture, unlawful wiretapping, and unlawful execution, based in anything but an attempt to avoid embarrassment and liability? How is it that we are morally superior to the Chinese government on this issue?

Examples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/obama-administration-invokes-state-secrets-privilegeagain/ [go.com]
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0811/Obama_admin_asserts_state_secrets_privilege_to_dismiss_Muslims_suit.html [politico.com]
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/25/secrecy_7/ [salon.com]

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131969)

And this is distinctive from America how?

Let's assume for a moment that it's exactly the same as America. What do we have then? We have two problems instead of one. It means the world is worse than it could be. It means now China AND America need to be cleaned up. Either way, China still has problems.

The surprising thing about this story is how much information this guy was actually able to get.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (3, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132099)

I agree with you that China should clean up its act. But what bugged me was the parent poster's seeming attitude that China was different somehow. I should have quoted the comment more fully:

The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness. They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power. The only time it comes out is when trying to keep it secret would hurt even more (i.e when a coverup is exposed).

I would have no issue with the comment if it read "The issue with government in general" -- or "The issue is the Chinese government (national level), like that of most, is not based ..."

It strikes me as hypocritical to suggest that China has some distinctive secrecy evil that one's own government steadfastly avoids (specifically, that secrecy is usually about protection from embarrassment, liability, or corruption/special industry favors). It's like a crack head denigrating a heroin addict as a dope fiend. Maybe I read too much into it, but that was my impression.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132767)

I wouldn't call it "hypocritical" to suggest that China has some distinctive "secrecy evil". It does after all have that along with every other such authoritarian government. I also find it interesting how some people seem more concerned about hypocrisy than about genuine evil. I didn't know successful evil was about lowering expectations.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132955)

Again, not my point. I'm concerned with hypocrisy because it shines a light on the evils we need to correct in our own house. Hypocrisy is a tool helpful in illuminating those problems, but is definitely not a tool to excuse them.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132951)

And this is distinctive from America how?

Why ask this question. Not everyone in the world resides in the US or China.

NEW in China: Active dishonesty! (1)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131937)

The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness. They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power. The only time it comes out is when trying to keep it secret would hurt even more (i.e when a coverup is exposed).

Yeah, and you'd think they'd be honest enough to simply say "None of your business". That's the interesting thing - The general thought is that the chinese government does not usually go out of it's way to actively deceive citizens, it just denies.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (1)

StormReaver (59959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132335)

The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness.

You can replace the word "Chinese" with "American", "British", or any other national government without changing the message, the message would still be true.

I was almost laughing when I read the summary, as its tone was derogatory against the Chinese government (and rightfully so), but we have the exact same problems in our own countries.

Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132549)

Actually it is worse in that many, if not all, of the Western governments as many are actually elected on platforms of openness and then once elected they're worse then the preceding government. As far as I know, the Chinese government did not become the government by promising openness whereas my government did run on a platform of openness.

Lousy REDACTED. (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131439)

I can't imagine living in REDACTED country where REDACTED was allowed to REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED. You'd think in the US, the REDACTED of Information Act would REDACTED this sort of thing but instead we find REDACTED REDACTED.

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131475)

Maybe, instead of blacking out redactions, governments should white them out and underline the space where they used to be, and indicate the type of word that used to be there. Mad Libs -- Secretive Government Edition!

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (1)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131993)

This is a brilliant idea! Recently, the U-2 has taken several _PRICKLY_ pictures of _PENIS_ development off the coast of _YOUR MOM_.

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131487)

In the USA, most government information IS open. But don't try to find out what chemicals frackers might be pumping down oil wells and into your groundwater. THEY are very much protected from public scrutiny.

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131629)

In the USA, most government information IS open. But don't try to find out what chemicals frackers might be pumping down oil wells and into your groundwater. THEY are very much protected from public scrutiny.

Yeah. Better to be totally dependent on unstable Middle East nations that mostly hate us and often fund our national enemies. After all, THEIR environment isn't as important as OUR environment so we let them pollute for us. We pay them to do it so they do it for us by proxy. Then we can drive our SUVs that never go off-road and never haul cargo, consume lots of disposable plastic goods, use electricity when we don't really need it, pretend we're totally innocent and then we can hate on those EVIL frackers. That is still fashionable, right? I mean I don't want to be behind the times.

At least until another trendy object of hatred comes along.

Reframing! (1)

mha (1305) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131705)

Nice spin, Mr - what does your reply have to do with the text you replied to? Nothing of course. You opened a completely different topic merely to distract, or what does not being able to get the information @Shavano asked about have to do with oil in the mid east?

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131731)

Or you can be a hacker and convert your car to run on electricity produced by solar panels on your roof like I am doing. Take back control.

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131825)

That's a step in the right direction but it will not totally replace fuel. At night, you burn fuel.

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131853)

But the environmentally champion Governor of Colorado Democratic Mayor Chickenpooper said that he drinks fracking liquid ALL the time!!!

So it must be good and yummy and good for you, just think of it as a groundwater flavor enhancer!!!

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132271)

Ah, but those fracking chemicals are trade secrets. You've got to protect those businesses from others learning their trade secrets. /sarcasm

Poster child, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132301)

Yeah, China serves as a great poster child for where we are headed.

But a 2000 year old Jewish heretic argued for fixing your own shortcomings before condemning your neighbor's - not that that point isn't lost on most of of his current claimed adherents...

Re:Poster child, but... (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132781)

But a 2000 year old Jewish heretic argued for fixing your own shortcomings before condemning your neighbor's

Why do we have rules and punishments for breaking those rules, if the solution is as you indicate to completely fix our own problems first?

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132409)

THEY are very much protected from public scrutiny.

That isn't government information. As another replier noted (sarcastically), it's a trade secret. You need a better reason than merely being nosy to know that sort of information.

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (1)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43133177)

In Quebec, a petroleum company is developing a technique that uses water for the first fracking and uses extracted petrol to continue the fracking process. Thing is, when you go green with your industrial process, it usually means you save money too. Lazyness is the only reason an industrial process is dangerous for the environment.

Re:Lousy REDACTED. (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132417)

So wherever they are, the decision makers go free.

Their loss... (1)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131473)

It's sad, but burying these sorts of reports rather than responding to them with higher pollution standards is their loss. And, when it comes to air pollution, ours as well.

up next high speed rail issues and crashes (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131503)

up next high speed rail issues and crashes

the usa did this as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131523)

in area 51

First I was surprised (1, Insightful)

arielCo (995647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131545)

At first I was surprised that they even cared about public opinion at all. Then I remembered that this is SE Asia, where the importance of "saving face" is taught along with potty training. Remember the 1996 rocket crash in China [cnn.com] ? A small village was razed, they detained journalists for hours, and days later Xinhua only admitted to six deaths, blaming failure on a "sudden gust of wind". Then you have the tragically comical DPRK.

This will only work (4, Insightful)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131621)

Until China starts experiencing a massive die off due to the pollution. Eventually they'll probably wake up to the fact and require manufacturing to install preventive measure. By that point manufacturing in China will be as expensive as it is in the United States. I wonder what big business will do then?

Re:This will only work (4, Insightful)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131709)

Africa

Re:This will only work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132077)

Does Africa have the resources to actually produce, the infrastructure, or the knowledge? Is it at a state China was 30 or 40 years ago? I know Africa is good for dumping old tech... but... anything else? I think that question needs to be asked. Destroying China may not be in anyones long term interests. Unfortunately we seem to be very short sighted. I guess this partly has to do with who runs things. People with money and people who are older. They are frequently the same people and neither care about the long term. Not in the USA, not in Europe, and not in China. Africa, South America, and other countries don't even seem to know these problems exist yet.

Re:This will only work (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131883)

Actually - China is working on a controlled die off anyway. They got to many people. They have limited the right to reproduce. One couple, one child. That is not a sustainable birth rate. China is intentionally decreasing their population, right now, as we sit and chat about it. A few catastrophes aren't going to deter them.

Re:This will only work (1)

altgeek (557342) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132627)

Yep, I've been there many times on business since the mid-80's. Not only is the air "apocalyptic" in the major city/manufacturing zones, most of the population is addicted to the products of the state-sponsored/invested cigarette companies. Upon their ivory (uhhhh... jade) tower, the politburo figures that this will keep the population down so they don't end up like India. And if the population gets uppity, well, that is what the army is for.

Re:This will only work (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131961)

China has enough population that if they'd die off quietly and cheaply, it wouldn't hurt China. And when China is expensive, everything will move to Africa. There's still plenty of cheap labor on the planet. The only question is where the cheapest place (and educated workforce reduces cost, as does solid infrastructure, one reason why China is cheaper than India, despite higher labor costs in China).

Re:This will only work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132003)

Here is the problems with Africa because on a cost per hour basis they take less money and be happy to get it.
1. Political Stability, African countries do not have very stable governments you're invested dollars can disappear very fast when civil war breaks out. Also it will leave you hunting for new suppliers.
2. Other Industries or lack of industrialization. In China if you need a new model for a plastic part you can call several local suppliers and have it made and delivered in a reasonable amount of time. In Africa, good luck getting parts for conveyor belt same week.
3. Middle class for management, You can find educated people when you need them in China.

Re:This will only work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132093)

You speak as though China would consider a massive die-off event as unfavorable.

Re:This will only work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132295)

It's a population control measure. And the ones who survive are those who are able to withstand the pollution. Evolution in action.

Re:This will only work (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132369)

India.

Re:This will only work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132699)

India is probably even more insular/protectionistic of their economy than china. Granted, it doesn't have state-owned enterprises...yet, but its environment of bribery makes it similar in practice.

Re:This will only work (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132647)

Options include

  • Use pro[per workplace safety and pollution controls, make 50 point margin
  • Screw that, cause millions to die off in accidents and pollution somewhere else, make 51 point margin DING! DING! DING!

It's just one village. What's all the noise about? (1)

LostMonk (1839248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131743)

It's not like the government is going to run out of cheap labor any time soon.

Re:It's just one village. What's all the noise abo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132185)

It's just one village.

No, it isn't [huffingtonpost.com] just one village.

POLLUTION?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131755)

don't those silly Chinese know that 'state secret' powers are only for the most serious of issues where disclosure poses a serious, legitimate & present threat to the lives, security, etc of people in said nation? as an American I am PROUD to say MY government uses this power with the upmost discretion and ONLY for things that clearly pass the "think of the children!" test! you know, things like this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html

Tell me again about that bill... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43131763)

that outlaws the use of secret footage taped at large agricultural companies, e.g. for animal mistreatment.

There's about 10 states passing such bills in the US right now.

So please, stop whining about china doing this.... clean up our own mess first.

This will never come back and bite them in the ass (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131813)

Yeah, burying waste and information will never, ever come back to haunt them.

It is an environmental time bomb. And there is plenty of blame to be spread around.

Re:This will never come back and bite them in the (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132113)

If the Tiananmen Square massacre didn't bother them I don't think some toxic waste will concern them either.

Re:This will never come back and bite them in the (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132589)

Tiananmen Square is bothering them. If it did not, they would not be trying to keep it quiet.

Okay, we get it. (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131845)

We, the Pots, are calling the Kettle black.

The crap we have going on in the US pales in comparison. We've got far more serious corruption at every turn and we've got problems which even exceed that.

So what's so remarkable about that? (5, Informative)

ErnyCowan (1687642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43131919)

In Canada our Conservative government has very similar policies. Using legislative process that suppressed scrutiny and debate it scrapped many environmental protection laws and regulations, eviscerated government science and oversight programs. It muzzles what scientists still remain buy requiring anyone in the civil service or or on contract with the government to receive approval from the Prime Minister's office before making any statement to the public. It even imposes these restrictions on non-Canadian agencies that need government approval to do research in Canada. That's what happens when ideologues get in control. - Erny

Re:So what's so remarkable about that? (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132665)

They're innovative though. The latest arguments about why studies can't be released is to protect IP.
http://www.canada.com/Scientist+calls+confidentiality+rules+Arctic+project+chilling/7960894/story.html [canada.com]
At least the Chinese government didn't get elected on a platform of openness.

So does the country of Canada (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132005)

Try getting any info about the tar sands and pollution in the province of Alberta, Canada. That is some of the dirtiest oil in the world to extract and the effects are very damaging to the ecosystem. But, if you listened to the government of Alberta or even the government of Canada, it is all fresh and flowery.

Re:So does the country of Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132215)

To be fair, the info on both sides of the debate is grossly exaggerated, and you’re not getting accurate info from the hippies either.

Re:So does the country of Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132353)

I've been there. I've seen it from the air and I've seen it on the ground. I know who is telling the truth.

In China, corruption is a state secret (1)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132201)

If someone reports corruption in China, they go to jail for revealing state secrets. The 'People's Republic' my arse! It should be called 'The Ruling Elite's Republic of Oppression of the People of China'. That would be a far more accurate name than the patriotism they attempt to wrap their misdeeds in today.

Re:In China, corruption is a state secret (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132379)

Kiriakou is the sole CIA officer to face jail time for any action involving the federal government's torture program. Ironically, Kiriakou, the whistleblower on the program, will go to prison, while the agents who implemented it will not.

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-2013/2554-ciatorture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-reports-to-prison-today [whistleblower.org]

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132279)

Of course. That's why we need drones.

You Have to Han it to The Chinese (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132321)

China has the totalitarian control many in government and other positions of influence are looking for. Your reasonable expectation of truth and honor in your overlord's conduct hinders his ability to serve you properly. The bright, shining light in all this seems to be that the Chinese are going to the trouble to cover it up... this at least implies they care what their indentured populace thinks of them. I, for one, welcome the day when their malfeasance is their undoing.

Re:You Have to Han it to The Chinese (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132403)

Is your title supposed to be a pun?

Re:You Have to Han it to The Chinese (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43132455)

Aye.. nice grab.

China misrepresented overfishing w/ similar reason (1)

eyenot (102141) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132605)

[from an academic paper I wrote in 2010]

During the 1990's, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization stated fish catches were increasing yearly. In 2001, two researchers revealed catches actually declined since the 80s. Chinese officials had overstated their national statistic, their operations of government subverted beneath operations of industry: the officials were promoted only if statistics reflected increased production. The Chinese officials had recorded "by-catch" (a term for unsalable fish) as productive (Clover; Cousteau, 149). As a direct result of their inventiveness, fishing was not done as if a scarcity were underway, which it was. Jacque Cousteau (page 94) explains the cause of overfishing between 1950 and 1985, "by including vast tonnages of 'trash fish', authorities camouflaged collapses of the major commercial fish stock." ...

Cousteau gasps that "such lapses by those who lead nations bewilder explorers who have led a team", and illuminates that the world catch statistics are misleading in another way: they did not reflect that the number of fishermen needed to catch each next year's harvest have had to grow significantly (between 1971-83, growing from 136,500 to 223,000 fishermen in America alone, aboard over 8,000 more vessels managing to catch statistically less fish than were caught in the 1950's), nor did they account for increasing technological prowess.

[/paper]

Re:China misrepresented overfishing w/ similar rea (1)

eyenot (102141) | about a year and a half ago | (#43132617)

oops, sorry:

Clover, Charles. "The End of the Line." New York: The New Press. 2006. Print.

Cousteau, Jacques and Susan Schiefelbein. "The Human, the Orchid, and the Octopus." New York: Bloomsbury. 2007. Print.

Trust (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43133043)

It's all about the luxury of trust, and of faith. If the governed trust the governors, then the governors will have the necessary freedom of action to pursue the right course, and not be constantly interrupted by whiney peasants who haven't the slightest idea of how hard it is to guide a nation into a new millennium of blessed prosperity.

Contrast this with democracy, where the voters are expected to use their best judgement based on the limited local information they have at hand, and then watch, aghast as their judgement is diluted by unthinking, uncaring, and downright traitorous elements who have different ideas.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?