5 ms·

I think this is a sign of things to come. The developed world has become so used to benefitting from China’s willingness to take our trash, dangerous labor and

I think this is a sign of things to come. The developed world has become so used to benefitting from China’s willingness to take our trash, dangerous labor and low paying work that we’re outraged and shocked when they decide they no longer have to.

adrianN 9y ago
There is always Africa if China becomes too developed to do the dirty work. And maybe robots, eventually.
- jacobush 9y ago
  Why do you think China invests in Africa?
ars 9y ago
We could just landfill our trash. But then we would feel bad about ourself. China doesn't want that - they want us buying lots and lots of stuff. i.e. China benefits from this more than we do. Clearly China has new plans, or they feel we are so used to buying things we're not going to stop.
amrx101 9y ago
Add India and Bangladesh.
mc32 9y ago
> that we’re outraged and shocked when they decide they no longer have to. Who's outraged? Maybe some places were caught by surprise at the change in policy (perh no fair warning), but I don't recall any outrage. It's their right to refuse. I mean, its a bit different from say OPEC in the 70s suddenly artificially constraining supply --no one would like the US to constrain wheat or corn exports for example. But this is altogether different. It's probably a good thing as people may be forced to think more in a cradle-to-grave product life-cycle and thus make things with that built-in. Given the added costs, it may well bring a few jobs back home to boot.
- dao- 9y ago
  > no one would like the US to constrain wheat or corn exports for example. Are you sure? I don't know much about US agriculture exports, but the aggressively subsidised exports from the EU are known to cripple agriculture in Africa.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    As is barriers to importing from Africa..
  - mc32 9y ago
    Pretty sure constraining supply would have a ripple effect on food prices everywhere because those two grains are the basis for much of "processed" foods as well as feed for meat producers, etc. What poor African counties arguably don't need is "dumped" donated aid which undercuts their farmers and weakens their agriculture and makes them increasingly dependent on foreign aid as well as enriches and strengthens the position of those in charge of distributing this largesse (i.e. corrupt local officials)
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Depends on the country in question and whether there is a humanitarian crisis. Moist of these are avoidable, such as droughts and desertification of pastures, but African farmers cannot afford measures to do it and the minor change from doing direct aid will not help.
- ctack 9y ago
  Cradle to grave will have a downstream effect for production volumes which would lead to less work for China. Wonder if that was part of their agreement to eat the worlds waste in the first place.
- JeanMarcS 9y ago
  Actually they warned last summer, with effectiveness this January https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-u-s-as-china-bans-foreign-waste https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-...

adrianN 9y ago

There is always Africa if China becomes too developed to do the dirty work. And maybe robots, eventually.

jacobush 9y ago
Why do you think China invests in Africa?

ars 9y ago

We could just landfill our trash. But then we would feel bad about ourself. China doesn't want that - they want us buying lots and lots of stuff. i.e. China benefits from this more than we do. Clearly China has new plans, or they feel we are so used to buying things we're not going to stop.

amrx101 9y ago

Add India and Bangladesh.

mc32 9y ago

> that we’re outraged and shocked when they decide they no longer have to. Who's outraged? Maybe some places were caught by surprise at the change in policy (perh no fair warning), but I don't recall any outrage. It's their right to refuse. I mean, its a bit different from say OPEC in the 70s suddenly artificially constraining supply --no one would like the US to constrain wheat or corn exports for example. But this is altogether different. It's probably a good thing as people may be forced to think more in a cradle-to-grave product life-cycle and thus make things with that built-in. Given the added costs, it may well bring a few jobs back home to boot.

dao- 9y ago
> no one would like the US to constrain wheat or corn exports for example. Are you sure? I don't know much about US agriculture exports, but the aggressively subsidised exports from the EU are known to cripple agriculture in Africa.
- jopsen 9y ago
  As is barriers to importing from Africa..
- mc32 9y ago
  Pretty sure constraining supply would have a ripple effect on food prices everywhere because those two grains are the basis for much of "processed" foods as well as feed for meat producers, etc. What poor African counties arguably don't need is "dumped" donated aid which undercuts their farmers and weakens their agriculture and makes them increasingly dependent on foreign aid as well as enriches and strengthens the position of those in charge of distributing this largesse (i.e. corrupt local officials)
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Depends on the country in question and whether there is a humanitarian crisis. Moist of these are avoidable, such as droughts and desertification of pastures, but African farmers cannot afford measures to do it and the minor change from doing direct aid will not help.
ctack 9y ago
Cradle to grave will have a downstream effect for production volumes which would lead to less work for China. Wonder if that was part of their agreement to eat the worlds waste in the first place.
JeanMarcS 9y ago
Actually they warned last summer, with effectiveness this January https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-u-s-as-china-bans-foreign-waste https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-...