2. Prohibiting import of U.S beef is not fundamental solution to avoid the risk.
3. Mad cow desease is the biggest issue of Korea these days. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease is caused from feeding meat containing ingredient to the cow for the fast growing as well as saving cost of discard remnant of dead anmimal. Here we can see the typical treadmill system. People who want large amount of cheap meat as living standard goes up,livestock raiser who wants maximise their profit and goverment who are supporting this were the constituents. But the real problem is this. This kind of system exist not only in U.S. but Korea as well. Korea also prohibits feeding meat of ruminant to ruminant but their is no regulation about other animal like pig and chicken. We cannot do anything about american cow but we can regulate our own livestocks. I hope this will be the chance to reform livestock industry and traet animal properly with regard.
------------------ U.S. beef is safe, South Korea says ASSOCIATED PRESS • May 2, 2008
Read Comments(1)Recommend (3)Print this page E-mail this article Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this? SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's agriculture minister went on national television today to assure citizens of the safety of U.S. beef after the government agreed last month to resume imports following a lengthy ban over fears of mad cow disease.
"U.S. beef is safe from mad cow disease," said Chung Woon-chun, minister of food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, at a televised news conference attended by the health minister and other officials.
Chung added that concerns about mad cow disease were "to some extent exaggerated."
South Korea agreed to resume imports of U.S. beef last month just hours before a meeting between the leaders of the two countries.
South Korea suspended U.S. beef imports in late 2003 after mad cow disease was discovered in Washington state, cutting off what was then the third-largest overseas market for American beef.
Several efforts to resume restricted imports beginning in late 2006 foundered after some shipments were found to contain animal parts that had been banned over mad cow concerns.
The beef issue has been a major irritant in relations between Seoul and Washington and threatened the approval of a wider free-trade agreement between the two longtime allies.
Some members of Congress had insisted the beef issue needed to be resolved for them to back the trade deal, signed last year. Legislatures in both countries have yet to approve the accord.
South Korea's farm ministry said last month that imports were expected to resume in mid-May and expand in stages.
Seoul will first allow imports of American beef from cattle younger than 30 months, including cuts with bones. Younger cows are believed to be at less risk for mad cow disease.
Beef from older cattle will also be cleared for import after the United States strengthens controls on feed to reduce chances of infection, the ministry said.
South Korea also agreed not to immediately halt imports even if a new case of mad cow disease is discovered in the United States. Instead, it will only move to halt imports if the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health downgrades its safety rating for American cattle.
Scientists believe mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, spreads when farmers feed cattle recycled meat and bones from infected animals. In humans, eating contaminated meat products is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which is rare and fatal.
South Korean farmers have vigorously opposed imports of U.S. beef as well as the free-trade deal with the United States, fearing cheaper imports will threaten their livelihoods. -------------------- http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-SKorea-US-Beef.html?scp=5&sq=Korea&st=nyt
3. In recent years, global warming has been a burning issue in the field of environment. The cause and consequences of global warming is detected as emission of greenhouse by mankind. This article explains the serious threat of global warming and possible green tariff on green trade of such countries. According to article, now china is emerging as a largest green house emission along with its increased industries that need large amount of fuel. Further this article sketch out the possibility of trade sanction imposed by USA. I guess this kind of article is the need to combat against global warming. The article says through the environmental debate either china will face trade war or rescue-the chances of bringing rich and poor nations together to fight global warming. I like this argument very much.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
2 comments:
1.Yoonjung Kim
2. Prohibiting import of U.S beef is not fundamental solution to avoid the risk.
3. Mad cow desease is the biggest issue of Korea these days. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease is caused from feeding meat containing ingredient to the cow for the fast growing as well as saving cost of discard remnant of dead anmimal. Here we can see the typical treadmill system. People who want large amount of cheap meat as living standard goes up,livestock raiser who wants maximise their profit and goverment who are supporting this were the constituents. But the real problem is this. This kind of system exist not only in U.S. but Korea as well. Korea also prohibits feeding meat of ruminant to ruminant but their is no regulation about other animal like pig and chicken. We cannot do anything about american cow but we can regulate our own livestocks. I hope this will be the chance to reform livestock industry and traet animal properly with regard.
------------------
U.S. beef is safe, South Korea says
ASSOCIATED PRESS • May 2, 2008
Read Comments(1)Recommend (3)Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's agriculture minister went on national television today to assure citizens of the safety of U.S. beef after the government agreed last month to resume imports following a lengthy ban over fears of mad cow disease.
"U.S. beef is safe from mad cow disease," said Chung Woon-chun, minister of food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, at a televised news conference attended by the health minister and other officials.
Chung added that concerns about mad cow disease were "to some extent exaggerated."
South Korea agreed to resume imports of U.S. beef last month just hours before a meeting between the leaders of the two countries.
South Korea suspended U.S. beef imports in late 2003 after mad cow disease was discovered in Washington state, cutting off what was then the third-largest overseas market for American beef.
Several efforts to resume restricted imports beginning in late 2006 foundered after some shipments were found to contain animal parts that had been banned over mad cow concerns.
The beef issue has been a major irritant in relations between Seoul and Washington and threatened the approval of a wider free-trade agreement between the two longtime allies.
Some members of Congress had insisted the beef issue needed to be resolved for them to back the trade deal, signed last year. Legislatures in both countries have yet to approve the accord.
South Korea's farm ministry said last month that imports were expected to resume in mid-May and expand in stages.
Seoul will first allow imports of American beef from cattle younger than 30 months, including cuts with bones. Younger cows are believed to be at less risk for mad cow disease.
Beef from older cattle will also be cleared for import after the United States strengthens controls on feed to reduce chances of infection, the ministry said.
South Korea also agreed not to immediately halt imports even if a new case of mad cow disease is discovered in the United States. Instead, it will only move to halt imports if the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health downgrades its safety rating for American cattle.
Scientists believe mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, spreads when farmers feed cattle recycled meat and bones from infected animals. In humans, eating contaminated meat products is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which is rare and fatal.
South Korean farmers have vigorously opposed imports of U.S. beef as well as the free-trade deal with the United States, fearing cheaper imports will threaten their livelihoods.
--------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-SKorea-US-Beef.html?scp=5&sq=Korea&st=nyt
z1. Madhabi Bhatta
2. Can Green Trade Tariffs Combat Climate Change?
3. In recent years, global warming has been a burning issue in the field of environment. The cause and consequences of global warming is detected as emission of greenhouse by mankind. This article explains the serious threat of global warming and possible green tariff on green trade of such countries. According to article, now china is emerging as a largest green house emission along with its increased industries that need large amount of fuel. Further this article sketch out the possibility of trade sanction imposed by USA.
I guess this kind of article is the need to combat against global warming. The article says through the environmental debate either china will face trade war or rescue-the chances of bringing rich and poor nations together to fight global warming. I like this argument very much.
Can Green Trade Tariffs Combat Climate Change?
In recent months, China has taken center stage in the international debate over global warming. It has surpassed the United States as the world's largest source of greenhouse gases, and it became developing nations' diplomatic champion at the recent United Nations climate negotiations in Bali. Now China may become the target of a full-fledged trade war that could destroy—or perhaps rescue—the chances of bringing rich and poor nations together to fight global warming.
The focus on China intensified late last year, when new data from the International Energy Agency and other research organizations revealed that China had overtaken the United States as the largest source of greenhouse gases—and, more ominously, that its emissions are growing at a rate that exceeds all wealthy nations' capacity to decrease theirs. Even if China met its own targets for energy conservation, its emissions would increase by about 2.3 billion metric tons over the next five years—far larger than the 1.7 billion tons in cutbacks imposed by the Kyoto Protocol on the 37 developed "Annex 1" countries, including the United States.
After the inconclusive end of the UN led Bali talks on the global environment, worry has grown among U.S. and European industries—especially iron, steel, cement, glass, chemicals, and pulp and paper—that any new climate treaty would put them at a big disadvantage against their fast-growing competitors in China. In response, the U.S. Congress is moving to create a system of trade sanctions that would levy heavy taxes on imports from other major greenhouse gas emitters. Ironically, the American plan is taking shape even before the United States takes any action to reduce its own emissions, inviting charges of hypocrisy, violation of international law, and threatening a major trade war.
The tariff proposal—contained in the central piece of global warming legislation now before Congress—would impose emission controls on domestic industries starting in 2012. It would also levy punitive tariffs on greenhouse-gas-intensive products imported from countries that lack "comparable action" to that of the United States, starting in 2020. Industrial lobbies and labor unions are pushing hard for these sanctions to take effect more quickly.
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and industrial chambers of commerce strongly advocate a similar tariff system, leading many analysts to predict that the EU will also adopt some sort of green tariff system in the next few years.
Warning of an "all-out trade war" if the sanctions go forward, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab argues that green trade sanctions would violate World Trade Organization rules. In a recent letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, she wrote, "We believe this approach could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear, rather than one of persuasion, that will take us down a dangerous path and adversely impact U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and consumers."
Developing nations' allies, meanwhile, are warning that the sanctions plan could destroy the chances of a post-Kyoto treaty. Chinese diplomats have not responded directly, but they have noticeably hardened their stand on climate talks. In February, China's top climate negotiator, Yu Qingtai, said at the UN that rich nations, which "caused the problem of climate change in the first place," must be treated as "culprits," and developing countries as "victims."
Despite China's official hard line, some Chinese environmental officials privately express alarm at run-away carbon emissions, and suggest that foreign green tariffs would actually strengthen their hand in domestic policy struggles over controlling greenhouse gases by helping to win political support for emissions cuts. Pan Yue, vice-director of the State Environmental Protection Administration, recently argued in a China Daily article in favor of stronger emissions regulations and a more "green-oriented China," warning that "China's image among the international community" was in jeopardy.
The growing dispute over trade sanctions brings to the fore not only the fundamental ethical question of whether wealthy nations should bear the burden of emissions reduction alone, but also the strategic question of whether sticks as well as carrots should be used to induce green behavior in developing countries.
Although China may not like it, the international trading system may provide more leverage than any other post-Kyoto mechanism over developing countries' environmental policies. Despite the threat of trade wars, trade sanctions could emerge as the most effective means of forcing international action on global warming.
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/35758
Post a Comment