Connect with us


US must acknowledge worker abuse linked to its corporate giants like Apple



Li Qiang says America’s China-bashing politicians mute their criticism when it comes to US companies profiting from the exploitation of Chinese workers. Li Qiang is the founder and executive director of China Labor Watch.

As the presidential election season gets under way, American politicians have used the coming state visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping as an occasion to criticise China’s human rights record.

I have spent more than a decade striving to improve civil rights in China. My efforts, like those of other Chinese activists, have regularly been obstructed by the Chinese government. Beijing’s efforts to suppress civil rights should receive condemnation. But the problem with American politicians’ criticism is that it selectively ignores human rights abuses that threaten the economic interests of the US.

While politicians go after China’s human rights record, tens of millions of Chinese workers, who make products for multinational corporations that will be consumed by Americans, are working more than 10 hours per day, six days per week, for less than US$2 per hour. Tens of thousands of underage Chinese workers toil on production lines churning out orders for American companies. Factories regularly use toxic chemicals in their production processes and lack adequate safety protocols, leading to many workers suffering injuries or a serious occupational disease. Minority groups and women face widespread employment discrimination by factories across China.

American companies must not be able to evade their responsibility for violations of Chinese workers’ rights

The Chinese supply chain of Apple is a clear example of human rights abuses perpetrated by American companies. Our investigations found that a major Chinese supplier factory to Apple called Pegatron would not hire ethnic Tibetans or Uygurs. In 2013, a 15-year old child worker died while on an Apple production line. This is only one of tens of cases of young Chinese workers in Apple’s supply chain dying of abnormal causes over the past five years. Apple and its supplier plants in China deny responsibility for these deaths. Ironically, Apple claims it does more to improve working conditions in its supply chain than any other company.

In August last year, an explosion at Zhongrong Metal Products, a General Motors supplier in Kunshan, southeastern China, killed some 146 workers. Yet GM maintains it has a responsible supply chain.

These are just two examples of widespread violations of the rights of Chinese workers by American multinationals. We rarely hear American politicians who criticise China’s human rights violations also mention the abuses visited on Chinese workers by American companies, not even those that lead to a loss of life.

There are costs to corporations like Apple truly remedying their human rights violations. Based on five years of researching Apple’s supply chain, our preliminary estimate tells us that if it wanted to improve working conditions and comply with Chinese labour laws, costs would rise by about US$5 billion, or 11 per cent of its 2014 net profit.

Last year, China’s exports to the US were worth US$396 billion. Most of these exports are products manufactured in China for US consumption. We can conservatively estimate that, for Chinese workers to be paid a living wage and work in conditions in line with Chinese regulations and the corporate social responsibility standards of multinational corporations, the US would collectively need to pay tens of billions of dollars more in labour costs. Abuses against Chinese workers’ rights by American corporations yield enormous economic benefits for the US.

American companies must not be able to evade their responsibility for violations of Chinese workers’ rights. Suppliers engage in brutal price competition. Strict quality standards for materials and products mean that, for suppliers, only the cost of labour is malleable. Situated at the bottom of the supply chain, Chinese workers have no choice but to bear the costs.

American politicians must acknowledge that US companies are continuing to benefit from these violations. Chinese workers’ rights are human rights, too.


Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?



self-driving cars for green environment
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Zapp2Photo |

Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?

But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?

The Big Picture

The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.

That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.

Driver Reduction?

One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.

There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.

As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.


Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.

Make and Model of Car

Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.

On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.

The Bottom Line

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?

Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.

Continue Reading


New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035



renewable energy policy
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Eviart /

New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.

New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.

Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.

Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”

The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.

Zero net emissions by 2050

Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.

Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.

She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.

Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”

A worldwide shift to renewable energy

Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.

Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.

Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.


Continue Reading