Carbon Emissions and Chinese Forest Fires

DISCLAIMER: I don't want anybody getting any funny ideas about thinking that this post has anything to do with human GHG emissions being relatively harmless in comparison with the amount of emissions released by nature. Though climate change has happened quickly in the past, the data largely shows that the current climate change is being spurred on by man. Forest fires, as you'll read, are just currently of interest to me.

California, especially Northern California, is currently engulfed in forest fires. Growing up in a part of the the Santa Cruz Mountains called Bonny Doon, our largest struggles with nature were the rain's effect upon our power lines and an earthquake in '89. As a young man I was less equipped to understand the devastation wrought upon our landscaping by the deer. Despite growing up shrouded in redwood trees and pine trees, the threat of forest fire never seemed present. While attending college in Southern California, several forest fires have struck near to where I lived, and though there was the pungent smell of sulfur and the days of raining ash I was always confident in the layers of suburbia that separated my residence from the fire.

A few weeks ago a fire started near my parent's home in Bonny Doon. Fortunately, their house was spared. Unfortunately, several others homes were not. This got me thinking about forest fires in China. China is a huge country with a bunch of forests, surely there must be fires out there. I did a search, and was surprised by the depth of research into Chinese forest fires.

China's increased to ability to contain forest fires has had a tremendous impact on reducing carbon emissions from forest fires. A 1995 paper by Xiaoke Wang, Yahui Zhuang and Zongwei Feng, Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Forest Fires in China, examines the carbon footprint of forest fires in China from 1950 through 1992. During this period there was an average of 16,212 forest fires per year, which burned a cumulative total of 29% China's total forested area, or 36.31 million hectares. In this period the by just about every measure possible the most fire-ridden province was Heilongjiang.

According to the article the average annual carbon emissions amounted to 20 million t/year. This amounts to 2.94% of the carbon emissions from China's "fossil fuel combustion and cement production in 1992 (678 million t/yr)." But, this is a bit misleading as the carbon emissions from forest fires is heavily skewed towards the earlier years. In 1992 the total release of carbon from Chinese forest fires only amounted to 0.30 million t, which is only equal to 0.04% of China's total carbon emissions from fossil fuel and cement production in the same year. A short Xinhua article explains that a "nationwide satellite forest fire monitoring network and a well-equipped fire fighting force" have resulted in a drastic reduction in China forest fires since 1987.

If you're interested in data current through 2000, you should check out Spatial and temporal patterns of carbon emissions from forest fires in China from 1950 to 2000, which I unfortunately am unable to find in a free version.

If you're interested in running some comparisons with the US you could do worse than checking out:
1. US Forest Service, Forests and Carbon Storage
2. Scientific Blogging, Guessing The Carbon Footprint Of US Wildfires

Posts of the Week: 6/23 - 6/29

Williams Loft Case Study About Sourcing in China at All Roads Lead to China

Restructuring Restructuring: State-Owned Enterprise Reform in the PRC (Part 3) at Boulder2Beijing

China Environmental Torts at China Environmental Law

is “no more chinese knock-offs” an empty threat? at China Esquire

China, India and Oil Prices at China Hearsay

Why Western Employers Are More Attractive to Many Chinese at The China Vortex

Anti-Circumvention: "We Must Find a Way, or We Will Make One"

At some point I stumbled upon this 2007 article from King & Wood attorneys Seagull Song Haiyan and Xu Yuezhu, Computer Software Protection in China. Yeah, there's some interesting legal technical stuff in there about the different avenues to protect software in China, but what really interested me was a reference to "Jiangmin's 'logic lock,'" called a logic bomb by those whose logic was locked. The logic lock is a rudimentary anti-circumvention device employed by Jiangmin to thwart pirates. Graciously, the authors wrote a footnote explaining what exactly this 'logic lock' was:

In 1997, Jiangmin anti-virus Software Company suffered great loss because of software piracy, but they could not get effective legal protection. Therefore, "logic lock", a type of protection program security was installed on the software. When the decoded software was run by the pirate, the "logic lock" would be automatically activated, and frequent computer locks would occur. Users suffered great damage from "logic lock" attacks. Jiangmin Company fell into the embarrassing situation of a worldwide condemnation. Eventually, due to the importation of hazardous data that endangered users' computer system, Jiangmin was subject to an administrative fine [RMB 5,000].

So, if I have this right, an anti-virus company fed up with piracy devised an insidious virus to protect their IP rights? The best defense might be a good offense ... in ancient warfare; Jiangmin's conduct crosses the Alps into the absurd (unfortunately without elephants).

In the quest for deeper knowledge about Jiangmin I arrived at a 2008 paper writeen by Jia Wang of Stellenbosch University of School of Law in South Africa, Anti-Circumvention Rules in the Information Network Environment in the US, UK and China: A Comparative Study. The article is about what the title proclaims, and provides more info on Jiangmin. As for the legal arguments the paper makes, this is from the abstract:

It reviews the evolution of Chinese anti-circumvention rules, starting with a well-known case preceding the promulgation of the anti-circumvention rules, then it examines the anti-circumvention provisions in the Copyright Act 1990, the Software Regulation 2001 and the ISP Interpretation 2004. It also critically analyzes the latest Network Regulation 2006 by comparing it with the DMCA and the CDPA. The paper suggests that the Chinese anticircumvention rules need to be constructed with more legal certainties. Recommendations are also made for additional redrafting to make China’s anti-circumvention rules more adaptive to a digital environment.

Tools: Shanghai FID Board

Way back when I directed visitors to a MOFCOM site full of laws & regs., news, and (somewhat aged) cases related to foreign direct investment in China. Today, I stumbled across a Cliffs Notes version of the same material with a specific focus on Shanghai, Shanghai Foreign Investment Development Board. Nice condensed descriptions of many laws, plus many fulls laws. Just not as many as the MOFCOM site which can make it a bit unwieldy at times. Unfortunately the site's info is not current as of January 1, 2008, so you're not going to find info on the Labor Law or on the revised corporate tax law.

Does this post feel ironic to you?

The Intricacies of Lawsuits in the US

I feel a special connection with stories about tort in the US. It has a lot to do with seeing Bill Lerach speak at my school about the justice he wrought in the world, pre-incarceration of course. Note to aspiring class action tort attorneys, it is not legal to give kickbacks from legal fees to your buddies that have standing any time there is corporate governance problems just because they own 1 share of every stock in the world. Bounties to named plaintiffs for 40 cents on the dollar to the attorney is not legal; besides you can never have as much style as Dog.

In the Sunday New York Times there is an article on tort reform by Jonathan Glater, To the Trenches: The Tort War is Raging On. The article is basically about how and why some dudes (that link is blocked here, I assume it's real) want to make civil lawsuits easier to file and win, and how and why other dudes (FYI, not blocked) are trying to make civil lawsuits harder to file and win. Interesting stuff, but American politics at its worst.

Instead, I want to focus on a single paragraph of the lengthy article that had some links to data that I've been wondering about since Civil Procedure. We're bombarded by anecdotes from our professors with practice experience that about how there are certain jurisdictions that are favorable to plaintiffs and certain jurisdictions that are favorable to defendants. I always wanted to know the specifics, now, thanks to the Times, I do.

You can check out the Lawsuit Climate 2008 prepared by the US Chamber of Commerce with the best State to get sued in at #1, Delaware, and the worst State to get sued in, West Virginia. And the American Tort Reform Association's compilation, Judicial Hellholes 2007, is not to be missed! They use pejorative terms and fill us lay-folk in on all fancy attorney slang (Los Angeles used to be known as "The Bank").

What's this have to do with China? Well, some of China's courts are becoming more sophisticated at a faster pace than others, and venue should never be overlooked, even in a country with a legal system as young as China's (drawing a blank on where I sourced this knowledge, something specific related to IP with Beijing Int. and Shanghai Courts being particularly sophisticated for IP disputes. I found this, but that ain't it.)

Posts of the Week: 6/16/ - 6/22

I am now situated beyond the Great Firewall of China. My RSS is getting testy, and I apologize for not getting everything in here.

Soccer & China's Manhood at Pomfret's China
My favorite American journalism, the kind I read in anthologies, is 20th century sports journalism. I really appreciate the aesthetic. I'd link you to my favorite, "The Last American Hero," by Tom Wolfe, but JuniorJohnson.org is blocked. Regardless, John Pomfret writes that Chinese sports journalism is powerful for the subtext.

Dogs and Lawyers Not Allowed This is China

China Investigating Microsoft For Antitrust Violations. We Don't Think So. at China Law Blog
Thanks CLB, the web confused me.

Sometimes, The Market Just Wants To Go Down (Part II) at Managing the Dragon

China-US Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED): Round 4 at China Environmental Law

People's Daily on Obama and the U.S Election from Time China Blog

Restructuring Restructuring: State-Owned Enterprise Reform in the PRC (Part 1) at Boulder2Beijing

Series of Great Posts From China Briefing:
Why China is Good for America
Dangerous China Investment Incentives
China's New Tax Incentives
Conducting Cost of China Business Assessments

Just for "fun:"
The Milton Friedman Institute and Ideological Intolerance in Academia at The Volokh Conspiracy
It's a digression, but I dig classical liberalism, in the 18th & 19th century sense.

A "Green" Olympics

Short video from Reuters by way of Scientific America, Beijing Goes Green For Olympics.

The video briefly discusses the airborne particle problems posed by factory pollution and sandstorms, as well as the measures that China's government is taking to to reduce airborne particles. A little yawn-inducing, but at then out of nowhere the reporter mentions that "even officials admit that all the changes were somewhat cosmetic and did not go far enough to green the city."

Posts of the Week 6/9 - 6/15

Tax Benefits Under China's New Corporate Income Tax Law: Much Unfinished Business at China Law Blog

Why do people oppose globalization? at Marginal Revolution

Free Trade Identity Crises at This is China

Interesting case on non-competition clauses in employment contracts at Chinese Law Prof Blog

Short-term Policy Effect and Long-term Market Force at 细语归川

Asia & The 2008 Presidential Campaign

Victor Mallet, Financial Times Asia editor, discusses how the most potentially significant and historically most damaging area of the world for America has played a minor role in the presidential debate so far in American candidates ignore Asia at their peril. There was "populist anti-China rhetoric that marked the early phase of the Democratic contest," and John McCain and Joe Lieberman wrote that the US "had common interests with China that could be the basis of a “strong partnership” on climate change, trade and nuclear proliferation."

In the end of the article Mr. Mallet argues that the candidates should worry about what is best for America and not worry about squeezing out a few more votes:

US presidential hopefuls should openly celebrate the US relationship with Asia, not hide behind a screen of spurious economic nationalism for the sake of a few blue-collar votes. Since the 1970s, Asia and the US have contributed immeasurably to each other’s well-being. Only a foolish president would put that at risk.

Optimistic... Yes... But Barack Obama and John McCain are probably the two candidates most able to do this.

Charlemagne Predicts Carbon Will Hammer Sino-European Relations

This week's Economist contains a gem of an opinion piece on Sino-European relations, Chinese Torture. Oddly devoid of the magazine's endearingly snarky comments, the accompanying illustration is a suitable abstract for the article which reviews "two new publications that have appeared, examining deepening ties between the EU and China--and what they may mean for America." The two publications are Can Europe and China Shape a New World Order? by the Centre for European Reform (CER), and China-Europe Relations by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Charlemagne argues that on the surface the relationship between the EU and China is amiable and should only become warmer. The things that bring the two together are:

• A mutual desire for a multilateral global political stage, or at least the fall of a unilateral world.
• "The EU is already China's largest trade partner."
• Shared in "world economic governance and harmonised regulations--unlike, say, resource exporters such as Russia, which could sell gas and oil even in a lawless world."
• Neither view the other as military threats, primarily because the EU does not maintain "troops and security alliances all around China's rim," particularly with Taiwan.
• "China and European governments often seem keener on trading with Iran than in curbing its weapons ambitions."
• A shared view of the "war on terror" as a part of the agenda, and not, as sometimes seems in America, "an existential fight that overshadows all else."

These commonalities have resulted in 27 sectoral agreements and dialogs between China and the EU reflecting recognition by the two of shared interests. The CSIS report even worries that EU-China ties "could, if mishandled, cause a transatlantic 'rift over China.'"

While Charlemagne and The Economist always have an agenda, the agenda of CER and CSIS is much more transparent in this instance. CER wants to promote shared interests in the name of multilateralism, and CSIS is "dedicated to finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world" (from their website). A transparent agenda can lead to a more simplistic analysis, and Charlemagne asks the reader to consider a more nuanced view of EU-China ties.

Two of the three things that Charlemagne argues could result in a falling out between the two are:

• Multilateralism has different meaning to the EU and China with the former "founded on the very idea of pooled sovereignty," and the latter having made it "clear that sovereignty and stability trump all other concerns."
• Rising nationalism in China, especially in the wake of the Olympics, could turn European public opinion against China. Europe has had bad experiences with nationalism.

But, it is the third, climate change, that Charlemagne says is most likely to cause a trade fight between China and the EU. Charlemagne argues that climate change has acquired the same existential threat status in Europe that terrorism has in America. In case you haven't heard, some say China emits some greenhouse gases. The problem is that upwards of 30% of the carbon emitted by China is the result of manufacturing for foreign companies. If China charges that a large amount of its carbon emissions are Europe's fault, then Charlemagne argues that Europe will argue that those are then European jobs. Charlemagne predicts that the combination of "globalisation, jobs and climate change" could result in a "nasty trade fight" between the two.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment decisively one way or the other, but Charlemagne's view sounds a lot more consistent with the persuasively nonpolar future.

I do not apologize for the pun in the title, but in case you're feeling sore about it I'd like to make amends by presenting the following painting of The Hammer's victory at Tours for your enjoyment:


Extreme post-modernism is rubbish and there is nothing symbolic in the painting about a trade fight between Europe and China over carbon. The painting is simply aged making the background look smoggy, and the red faced gent in the middle is supposed to be an Umayyad Arab, not Guan Yu.

Posts of the Week 6/2 - 6/8

China's New Labor Law -- Just Deal With It. at China Law Blog

China's New Bankruptcy Law: Slow Train Coming at China Law Blog

Danone/Wahaha -- China Business Lessons To Be Learned at China Law Blog


Closing Down Representative Offices in China at China Briefing

How to Prevent and Act Upon Intellectual Property Rights Infringements in China at IP Dragon

IP Stats and China’s Innovation Society at China Hearsay

Impact of High Priced Oil on China’s Auto Industry at Managing the Dragon

China IP Infringement and VC Risk at China Hearsay

China and Africa: Cooperating With the US to Build A Stronger Africa

This morning Thomas Christensen, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and James Swan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, made a joint presentation before the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, China in Africa: Implications for US Policy. The report examines China's historical relationship with African countries, China's modern relationship with Africa, and ways that the US and China can work together to promote common foreign policy goals in Africa.

As to China's historical relationship with Africa:

China’s engagement with Africa is not new. Beijing initiated bilateral assistance to Africa in 1956 and, by its own account, has funded over 800 projects between 1957 and 2008. There are few capitals in Africa where China has not built a showpiece building, from a national sports stadium to a gleaming new ministry headquarters. Estimates of Chinese development assistance to Africa in this decade vary, but tend to fall around $1-$2 billion per year. This amount is still relatively modest in comparison to the annual contributions of $18 billion (including debt relief) provided by the European Union (EU) and member countries, $9 billion from multilateral institutions, and about $5 billion from the United States Government.

The report explains that:

Whereas the foundation for China’s early interaction with Africa was the promotion of a shared leftist, anti-colonial ideology, the common ground now is mostly a convergence of economic interests in a global trading system.

And the numbers certainly bear this evolving relationship out. Between 2000 and 2007 bilateral trade between China and Africa grew from $10 billion to $70 billion with China becoming Africa's second largest trading partner in the process. China's foreign direct investment in Africa increased almost five-fold between 2003 and 2006 from $491 million to $2.5 billion. The most common forms of China FDI in Africa are textiles, light manufacturing, construction and agriculture. The report makes sure to point out that with the exception of Sudan, China's oil companies are "not dominant players in Africa's energy industry," with China's total oil production in Africa being equal to 1/3 of ExxonMobil's African production in 2006.

The real question that the authors seek to answer is how can the US and China work together to promote common goals in Africa. In seeking common ground the authors argue that we should focus on our foreign policy goals in Africa while ignoring the affects of working together in Africa on the US-China bilateral economic relationship. The authors identify the following as US foreign policy priorities in Africa:

• Promoting democracy
• Human Rights
• Political stability
• Good governance
• "Sustainable economic development to improve the health, education and living standards of the continent's population"

The authors laud China's considerable contribution to the economic development of Africa, and they believe that this contribution will only grow which is to the benefit of Africa. They do argue though that the global community will only support China's growth in Africa if the world thinks that China is committed to economic development and not just securing strategic commodities.

The authors are also pragmatic in recognizing that we need to work with China in promoting good governance, human rights and transparency in Africa -- notice democracy is not there. The report does acknowledge current cooperation between the US and China, areas for potential cooperation, and areas where China needs to improve.

Current cooperation between the US and China is limited to two areas. The first is peace-keeping missions in and the rebuilding of Liberia. The second is "by supporting conferences and symposiums." An example given by the is the Vital Voices Summit for African Women.

Areas for potential cooperation include public health programs which are currently being independently pursued by each nation, and agricultural programs to boost agricultural output in Africa. Plans for agricultural cooperation between the US and China are being set in Ethiopia and Angola.

And, the State Department takes the view that while China has done some positive in Sudan by having the only non-African peace-keeping force in Darfur, China's image and "ability to play the role of responsible stakeholder in Africa's affairs" is undermined by its close ties with Zimbabwe and Sudan. The State Department argues that China should to use its influence with Sudan to curb Sudan's use of violence against its civilians and rebels. Also, the State Department urges China to "halt its companies' substantial arms trade with Sudan" and Zimbabwe.

Also, the State Department would like to see greater transparency in the aid that China is contributing to Africa which will help the IMF and World Bank to make better assessments in the long-term, stable economic growth of Africa.

There is an undercurrent of American chauvinism in the report, otherwise the level of cooperation that the report calls for is Obamaesque. Except for the lack of mention of HIV AIDS, not one single mention, unless you count "endemic diseases." That's certainly Bushy. And they even mentioned malaria and polio by name...

Well, we'll have a new State Department in less than a year.

Posts of the Week: 5/26 - 6/1

When Sourcing in China. Cash = Control at All Roads Lead to China

Why You MUST Have A China OEM Agreement. at China Law Blog

Three PRC lawyers comment on amended Lawyers Law at Chinese Law Prof Blog

Examination of Three-dimensional Marks by Wang Ze at IP Dragon

IP Enforcement and Unintended Consequences at China Hearsay

Help! My goods are stuck in China. at Silk Road International

What Lawyers MUST Know About China at China Law Blog

CSRC to mutual funds: Stop selling! at China financial markets

fraud rule under the chinese law of letters of credit at China Esquire

China CDM Projects at China Environmental Law

China's tax authority to further make clarifications on the restriction of preferential tax policies of FIEs at China Law Practice Blog