When The Truth Fits In China, US Consumers Will Pay
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 08.22.07
From truth can come change for the better. US consumers and business leaders have just gotten a big dose of it from Wall Street Journal. In a lengthy report, the Journal has thoughtfully explained the role of US consumers in causing the severe environmental impacts stemming from contract textile making in China. After several decades of blaming US retailers for the problem, its time for we 'greens' to face the facts. Performance auditing by US branded companies has not driven Chinese textile and clothing factories to sufficiently invest in pollution prevention and advanced wastewater treatment technology. Management systems just aren't in place. Only a Chinese version of what the US calls the "Clean Water Act," and tailored Best Practicable Treatment definitions, backed by a legion of black belt enforcers and extensive technology transfer programs, can bring that about. The article makes clear that the upshot of that scenario would be increased cost of Chinese export manufacturing, much of which would deservedly be passed on to US consumers.
We often wonder if the Chinese government and local officials are up to the task. Equally important is the question of whether US corporations have the lobbying power and will to support such positive change; whether US consumers would be willing to pay the long term price increases; and, whether the US government is willing to help the Chinese fashion an effective regulatory regime. After the repeated gutting of USEPA budgets and loss of senior staff in recent years, the latter seems unlikely. That leaves more of the issue, from the US end, in corporate hands.
From the referenced WSJ story:- In China, "...prices on fabric and clothing imports to the U.S. have fallen 25% since 1995, partly due to the downward pricing pressure brought by [US-based] discount retail chains. One way China's factories have historically kept costs down is by dumping waste water directly into rivers. Treating contaminated water costs about 13 cents per metric ton, so large factories can save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by sending waste water directly to rivers in violation of China's water-pollution laws.
"Prices in the U.S. are artificially low," says Andy Xie, former chief economist for Morgan Stanley Asia, who now works independently. "You're not paying the costs of pollution, and that is why China is an environmental catastrophe."
Toxic runoff from China's booming textile industry is one reason why many of the nation's largest rivers resemble open sewers and 300 million people lack access to clean drinking water."
If you lived in China, which would be more important for you personally, which choice would engage your political interests most: making surface water safe enough for irrigation and drinking or reducing C02 emissions? What would you think about outsiders telling you that climate change is what matters most when those same outsiders are demanding products that foul the water? (Remembering that many Chinese likely grew up never having seen clear water.) Obviously, taking clean water more seriously on the US end would open up a better dialog on climate change. For that we must pay a price.
Although somewhat dated, A USAID program seems to still host a United States - Asia Environmental Partnership program with a textiles industry focus. More of that is exactly what is needed.
Via: "Downstream Effect: U.S. Retailers Impact China's Water Pollution" - WSJ Online, by subscription only. Image credit:: Author + Filmmaker Greg Spotts, "First Month of Quota-Free Textile Trade is a Bonanza for China"
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Convenient, Tasty, Healthy Water is Only a Tap Away
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
- Ditch Bisphenol A (BPA) Now if You Want to Have Kids!
- Manage Ticks Without Environmental Toxins
- Chipotle Goes Green, Plus Recipe for Hormone-Free Braised Pork with Chipotle Peppers
Great story, John, but I found the article from WSJ and it's not subscription only.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118580938555882301.html
=== authors' response follows ===
Amazing. I've had an online subscription to WSJ since it first became available back in the 90's. Looks like they are transitioning to an open platform. The Rupert effect?
First of all, China sets the price for manufacturing by providing worldwide corporations prices that maximize corporate profits, by minimizing costs of production through "skimming on wages, environmental practices and poor infrastructure. This way they attract the companies to China. Americans, without a doubt are the worlds top consumers. We have long set a standard of "discposible products" by producing low price products made cheaply with the intent to have consumers throw it away after a year or two because it is cheaper to buy a replacement than to fix it. Example are shoes, we have little to know shoe repair industry because shoes are built to be thrown away after less than a year. This keeps manufacturers haoppy because of a constant demand for cheap disposible products. It is corporate america that has lead much of this transition. It wasn't that long ago (Historically) that furniture, ools, electrodomestics, etc. were a once in a lifetime purchase, they were built to last. Yes they were expensive, but they were a one time investment in most cases. Even clothes were made to last and thus the hand me down culture we were used to when I was growing up. But that meant the demand was not very high because product turnover was not high... with the introduction of cheaper, lower quality products being shipped to the US we switched our buying perspective and became what we are today, a high consumer of cheap disposible products. To say that the US consumers need to bear the cost of another country's opportunistic strategy of offering cheap infrastructure for doing business is not smart, if China or any other nation was concerned about the environment or wages paid to their workers they would price their products to meet their expectations and responsibilties. They chose to go cheap to get our business. They want us to buy their cheap products. They don't have to be cheap and we certainly do not need to pay for their decisions.