The claims about this disease are startling, even scary. They say it ravages the body, is highly contagious, passing from person to person in any bodily fluid, and does not result in a positive HIV test.
From the news stories out there, it seems that at least hundreds of people have been suffering from this disease for at least 2-3 years. Well if that's the case, then it couldn't be as "highly contagious" as claimed, or else there would be millions sick by now.
Then again, maybe there are many more carriers who do not exhibit symptoms. As of now, it looks like there could be any number of possible explanations. In an article in February, the BBC reports doctor speculation that the disease could be the result of a mental condition.
Or, who knows? Perhaps the disease will eventually be found to have a link to pollution or chemicals in the environment or the food chain.
Of course there may also be the Armageddon wishful thinkers out there. And there are definitely some trying to foment anxiety. One Christian news site published an article headlined that the disease had spread to the U.S. - but the link provided contained no such information.
Aside from the Epoch Times and BBC articles linked, news of this seems to be traveling mostly on the blogs.
Update
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Sunday, November 14, 2010
China Wants More Gas Hogs - India Says They're Criminal
China wants more gas hogs but India wants fewer of them. At least that's the message one could take from recent news items emanating from the two countries.
Volvo's Chinese owers, Geely, who purchased Volvo from Ford this August for $1.5 billion, have now let it be known that they want to see Volvo producing more larger, luxury cars for the Chinese market. Volvo has been working towards the contrary, smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. The Geely comments came from Chairman Li Shufu in the state-owned Security Times. Volvo now has a dealer network in China covering 81 cities and sales have been soaring.
This in stark contrast to the situation in India, where the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, came out on the attack against German automakers Friday, saying that driving the big-engined BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes was "criminal."
“The luxurious growth of large-size vehicles like SUVs is really a growth of concern, use of vehicles like SUVs and BMW in countries like India is criminal,” he said at a UN function in New Delhi, according to news agency IANS.
The country should levy extra fees and mandatory fuel efficiency standards on these cars, the minister suggested.
"We cannot ask people to buy or not to buy a particular car. But through an effective fiscal policy, we can certainly have an impact," he said.
The obvious difference between these apparent positions is that the Chinese viewpoint comes from business, an automaker, who probably have a particular niche in mind for the Volvo brand, whereas the India viewpoint comes from the political side. Although, one presumes that the public assertions of Chinese business would be basically in line with government policy.
Volvo's Chinese owers, Geely, who purchased Volvo from Ford this August for $1.5 billion, have now let it be known that they want to see Volvo producing more larger, luxury cars for the Chinese market. Volvo has been working towards the contrary, smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. The Geely comments came from Chairman Li Shufu in the state-owned Security Times. Volvo now has a dealer network in China covering 81 cities and sales have been soaring.
This in stark contrast to the situation in India, where the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, came out on the attack against German automakers Friday, saying that driving the big-engined BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes was "criminal."
“The luxurious growth of large-size vehicles like SUVs is really a growth of concern, use of vehicles like SUVs and BMW in countries like India is criminal,” he said at a UN function in New Delhi, according to news agency IANS.
The country should levy extra fees and mandatory fuel efficiency standards on these cars, the minister suggested.
"We cannot ask people to buy or not to buy a particular car. But through an effective fiscal policy, we can certainly have an impact," he said.
The obvious difference between these apparent positions is that the Chinese viewpoint comes from business, an automaker, who probably have a particular niche in mind for the Volvo brand, whereas the India viewpoint comes from the political side. Although, one presumes that the public assertions of Chinese business would be basically in line with government policy.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Rare Earth Metals - Strategic Discovery is a Wake Up Call
The incident last week where China threatened to, and perhaps did, cut off exports of rare earth metals to Japan has implications far beyond the obvious. The implications are fairly obvious too.
This is a story about the world's new stand-alone superpower flexing its muscle. China flexing hard in response to a relative triviality. And doing so with impunity.
The "Discovery" of Rare Earth Metals
For many, the discovery here is, "gee whiz, what a great opportunity rare earth metals look like - where can I get some?"
The vast forest of this issue, beyond the few trees in front of our eyes, is the action taken by China. Their willingness to wield a strategic commodity monopoly as a hammer in a relatively minor situation is a revelation.
It shows what a disadvantage western countries put themselves in, when our business decisions are based almost entirely on the amount of short-term cash generated for the individuals controlling the decisions. Whereas China makes business decisions based almost entirely on what what gives it the greatest long-term strategic advantage.
Over the past few years, we have watched control of aluminum, nickel and other strategic commodities fall out of Canadians' hands. For what?? So a couple of directors and a handful of shareholders could cash in their chips? It is beyond me how anyone could possibly decide that the sale of Inco or Alcan was of net benefit to Canada, which is supposed to be the determining factor in foreign investment review. In any rational analysis, when consumption is expanding exponentially, you would have to be nuts to give up control over a metal resource you already control.
To take that one step farther - you would have to be pretty much brain dead to give up control of a cornerstone resource that you already control in agriculture. We are on the brink of making that mistake now with potash. Canada controls potash. But Saskatchewan-based Potash Corp. is currently the subject of a hostile takeover attempt by Australian multinational BHP group.
Potash was successful yesterday in temporarily blocking the $40 billion offer,
alleging that BHP had provided ''false and misleading statements'' in relation to its $US130-a-share offer and its intentions regarding its potash business.
Although $130 is more than Potash Corp was trading for at the time of the original BHP offer in August, today's price on the NYSE is $145. In the summer of '08, Potash Corp was trading at over $230.
This scenario still has a long way to play out. Whether or not BHP's offer ever sees the light of day, an offer from China (or elsewhere?) could also be forthcoming. Either way, any purchase would have to pass foreign investment review. Which, if Potash Corp. were in China, would never happen. Will we allow it to happen in Canada?
Potash is not only a key strategic resource. It is also a commodity that is essential for the agricultural industry in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan, the same province that produces the potash. So, it would be a monumental error to allow this resource to be controlled elsewhere, by some foreign power that could conceivably wield it against us at the drop of a hat, as China did with rare earths against Japan last week.
This is a story about the world's new stand-alone superpower flexing its muscle. China flexing hard in response to a relative triviality. And doing so with impunity.
The "Discovery" of Rare Earth Metals
For many, the discovery here is, "gee whiz, what a great opportunity rare earth metals look like - where can I get some?"
The vast forest of this issue, beyond the few trees in front of our eyes, is the action taken by China. Their willingness to wield a strategic commodity monopoly as a hammer in a relatively minor situation is a revelation.
It shows what a disadvantage western countries put themselves in, when our business decisions are based almost entirely on the amount of short-term cash generated for the individuals controlling the decisions. Whereas China makes business decisions based almost entirely on what what gives it the greatest long-term strategic advantage.
Over the past few years, we have watched control of aluminum, nickel and other strategic commodities fall out of Canadians' hands. For what?? So a couple of directors and a handful of shareholders could cash in their chips? It is beyond me how anyone could possibly decide that the sale of Inco or Alcan was of net benefit to Canada, which is supposed to be the determining factor in foreign investment review. In any rational analysis, when consumption is expanding exponentially, you would have to be nuts to give up control over a metal resource you already control.
To take that one step farther - you would have to be pretty much brain dead to give up control of a cornerstone resource that you already control in agriculture. We are on the brink of making that mistake now with potash. Canada controls potash. But Saskatchewan-based Potash Corp. is currently the subject of a hostile takeover attempt by Australian multinational BHP group.
Potash was successful yesterday in temporarily blocking the $40 billion offer,
alleging that BHP had provided ''false and misleading statements'' in relation to its $US130-a-share offer and its intentions regarding its potash business.
Although $130 is more than Potash Corp was trading for at the time of the original BHP offer in August, today's price on the NYSE is $145. In the summer of '08, Potash Corp was trading at over $230.
This scenario still has a long way to play out. Whether or not BHP's offer ever sees the light of day, an offer from China (or elsewhere?) could also be forthcoming. Either way, any purchase would have to pass foreign investment review. Which, if Potash Corp. were in China, would never happen. Will we allow it to happen in Canada?
Potash is not only a key strategic resource. It is also a commodity that is essential for the agricultural industry in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan, the same province that produces the potash. So, it would be a monumental error to allow this resource to be controlled elsewhere, by some foreign power that could conceivably wield it against us at the drop of a hat, as China did with rare earths against Japan last week.
Friday, February 26, 2010
When You Know You're Behind in EVs: Canada 300; China 500,000
Just another day in blogland, right. Feb 23 - nothing too remarkable going on... ho-hum, oh! look at this: Toronto wants at least 300 electric cars by 2012. Wow! a veritable industrial revolution!
Directly from Auto-blog-green:
"Now, the Greater Toronto Area is getting its act together with the EV300 program that intends to get at least 300 plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and pure electric vehicles (EVs) into public and private fleets by 2012. The City of Toronto, Toronto Hydro and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation already have plug-in vehicles in their fleets. Gerry Pietschmann, director of fleet services for the City of Toronto, said that EV300 will allow fleets to:
Then someone sends me this link:
And it continues with the following info on Green Car Advisor:
"China is launching a nationwide program to install electric vehicle charging stations as its auto industry begins developing plug-in vehicles with the stated goal of producing 500,000 plug-in hybrids and battery-electric cars by the end of 2011."
It's not apples and apples, I know. Apparently the U.S. is actually hoping to produce something like half that number of EVs and hybrids in total.
But EV300?? For real? Is that a number that Toronto's largest city should be targeting to have in public and private fleets for 2012? When China is targeting production of 500,000. It seems to me like you couldn't be less ambitious if you tried. Yet who knows? It is possible that other Canadian cities have even less challenging objectives.
In Jan. '09 with quite a bit of fanfare, Better Place announced a partnership with the government of Ontario with the intent of setting up a network of charging stations. Nothing seems to have changed or happened since the initial press release, judging by the Better Place website. Canada needs more real EV initiative fast.
To my way of thinking, we will never catch up if we allow China to get so far out in front.
Directly from Auto-blog-green:
"Now, the Greater Toronto Area is getting its act together with the EV300 program that intends to get at least 300 plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and pure electric vehicles (EVs) into public and private fleets by 2012. The City of Toronto, Toronto Hydro and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation already have plug-in vehicles in their fleets. Gerry Pietschmann, director of fleet services for the City of Toronto, said that EV300 will allow fleets to:
So I'm thinking, yeah, OK, that's not bad... not great maybe but...pool their purchasing power and share information about what works and what doesn't when it comes to electric vehicles. It also helps us to identify what needs to be done to better support the use of electric vehicles, whether it is making charging points more available or teaching drivers how best to operate this new breed of vehicles."
Then someone sends me this link:
And it continues with the following info on Green Car Advisor:
"China is launching a nationwide program to install electric vehicle charging stations as its auto industry begins developing plug-in vehicles with the stated goal of producing 500,000 plug-in hybrids and battery-electric cars by the end of 2011."
It's not apples and apples, I know. Apparently the U.S. is actually hoping to produce something like half that number of EVs and hybrids in total.
But EV300?? For real? Is that a number that Toronto's largest city should be targeting to have in public and private fleets for 2012? When China is targeting production of 500,000. It seems to me like you couldn't be less ambitious if you tried. Yet who knows? It is possible that other Canadian cities have even less challenging objectives.
In Jan. '09 with quite a bit of fanfare, Better Place announced a partnership with the government of Ontario with the intent of setting up a network of charging stations. Nothing seems to have changed or happened since the initial press release, judging by the Better Place website. Canada needs more real EV initiative fast.
To my way of thinking, we will never catch up if we allow China to get so far out in front.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
China Tar Sands Purchase Appproved by Harper
The Harper government has approved the purchase of two Alberta tar sands projects by the PetroChine International Investment Co. Ltd. from Athasbasca Oil Sands Corp.
The Chinese agreed to spend over $250 million developing the two projects, MacKay and Dover, and open a head office in Alberta to manage things.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
What was China's strategy in Copenhagen?
Was China dealing in bad faith in Copenhagen?
If you read Mark Lynas' piece in Tuesday's Guardian, you may well conclude, 'yes' they were dealing in bad faith.
Lynas' headline on the front page of the Guardian environment section says, "How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room.
Lynas goes on to detail several reasons why he feels China is responsible for the poor agreement that isn't even agreed.
He writes, "China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame."
The humiliation to Obama, of course, originated with the Chinese Premier, Wen Jinbao, who did not attend the negotiating session on the night of Friday, Dec. 18, at which Obama spent several hours. So President Obama was forced to deal with some Chinese flunky, who would need to excuse himself periodically to call his bosses for guidance.
Having some personal experience with Asian cultural sensitivity in face-to-face interactions, the two conclusions I draw are that, firstly, Jinbao must have been keenly aware of the awkwardness and embarrassment he caused by not showing up. Second, and more important, though, I think his reason for not attending could have been influenced to some extent by a determination to not get into a face-to-face confrontation or disagreement with Obama.
The failure of Copenhagen to result in an agreement that would be considered useful in terms of alleviating Co2 emissions and global warming is widely being put on the Chinese.
No need to even mention here the ghost in the room, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who was basically persona non grata anywhere and everywhere in Copenhagen. We might, however, consider what a difference it could have made if Canada were to have been an activist for tough emissions cuts, rather than trying not to be noticed. I would imagine that both the U.S. and China would have been pressured towards greater resolve in achieving a significant deal.
The next step, as I see it, is to let time do its work. In two weeks I believe we will have a much clearer idea of where Copenhagen has brought us.
If you read Mark Lynas' piece in Tuesday's Guardian, you may well conclude, 'yes' they were dealing in bad faith.
Lynas' headline on the front page of the Guardian environment section says, "How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room.
Lynas goes on to detail several reasons why he feels China is responsible for the poor agreement that isn't even agreed.
He writes, "China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame."
The humiliation to Obama, of course, originated with the Chinese Premier, Wen Jinbao, who did not attend the negotiating session on the night of Friday, Dec. 18, at which Obama spent several hours. So President Obama was forced to deal with some Chinese flunky, who would need to excuse himself periodically to call his bosses for guidance.
Having some personal experience with Asian cultural sensitivity in face-to-face interactions, the two conclusions I draw are that, firstly, Jinbao must have been keenly aware of the awkwardness and embarrassment he caused by not showing up. Second, and more important, though, I think his reason for not attending could have been influenced to some extent by a determination to not get into a face-to-face confrontation or disagreement with Obama.
The failure of Copenhagen to result in an agreement that would be considered useful in terms of alleviating Co2 emissions and global warming is widely being put on the Chinese.
No need to even mention here the ghost in the room, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who was basically persona non grata anywhere and everywhere in Copenhagen. We might, however, consider what a difference it could have made if Canada were to have been an activist for tough emissions cuts, rather than trying not to be noticed. I would imagine that both the U.S. and China would have been pressured towards greater resolve in achieving a significant deal.
The next step, as I see it, is to let time do its work. In two weeks I believe we will have a much clearer idea of where Copenhagen has brought us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
