Coronavirus Is Not Killing Globalisation [feedly]

A not unreasonable take on the direction of globalization -- an alternative to those predicting a retreat.

Coronavirus Is Not Killing Globalisation
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/25/06/2020/coronavirus-not-killing-globalisation

Sam Pryke examines the view that the Covid19 pandemic is further weakening globalisation and finds that this is not the case.  In some respects, it is extending it.

Globalisation was in trouble for some time before Covid19 according to commentators.  The last 3 months have apparently seen it's impetus further weakened.  But, although the current pandemic may see aspects of global interconnection reconfigured, talk of its demise is much exaggerated.

Pundits have engaged in talk of 'de-globalisation', even 'the end of globalisation' since 2016, whilst gloomy forecasts, often from supporters of free markets, go all the way back to the financial crash of 2008.  That was termed by some, notably the then British PM Gordon Brown, as the first crisis of globalisation.  Analysts argued that the failure of the experiment in free market capitalism, one that had come to dominate government policy for 3 decades through the ideological guise that 'there is no alternative', would give rise to various forms of protectionism.  This didn't really happen.  There was no systematic attempt by governments to pull apart the integration of economies.  Instead, globalisation on most, if not all, measures regained the levels attained in 2007 by 2011/12 - and then grew further.  International trade is the most commonly used indicator of globalisation.  In 2018, more goods were traded around the world than ever before.  The last DHL survey found that in 2017 the volume of worldwide flows of finance, commodities, information and people, therefore a more rounded assessment, were at their highest ever levels. 

Why then a chorus of voices saying that globalisation is in retreat?  Central has been the rise in nationalist (or populist) movements and leaders: BREXIT and then Johnson in Britain, Trump in the USA, Xi Jinping in China, Bolsonaro in Brazil and Modi in India are five of the best known examples.  Of these leaders, only Trump is explicit in his rejection of globalisation – 'Americanism not globalism' was a campaign cry as he announced his candidacy for the Republican Party in 2015 – and has backed his words by tariffs on more than $360bn (£268bn) of Chinese goods.  China has retaliated with tariffs on more than $110bn of US products.  But all are sceptical of aspects of globalisation, certainly any perceived diminution of state power.  Besides nationalism, commentators have also pointed to de-globalisation through the 'reshoring' of investments of multinational companies and the implications of robots fitted with artificial intelligence - specifically, their potential to do the work that large numbers of immigrants do because domestic populations won't.

If received opinion was that globalisation was already in trouble, the spread of Covid19 has prompted numerous claims that the pandemic will do further long term damage.  The gist of some comment has been to underline what is obvious: the effort to prevent the spread of the virus, something that travelled through global networks, has reasserted the enormous power of nation states.  Leaving aside simplistic dichotomies between states and global actors (e.g. multinational companies) and arenas (world markets), negative state power has been evident in their ability to prevent people from moving between and within countries for work or leisure, and to close down sections of economies.  And in their positive power to pay workers whose employers have been compulsorily closed, to boost domestic economies through massive financial injections and to provide health care for those who have contracted the virus.  In the USA, the federal state tried to stop some companies, notably the PPE manufacturer 3M, from exporting face masks.   This exceptional governance and policy (that has of course resulted in $ trillions of additional debt) has underlined what has always been obvious: states have the real power in the world and businesses have always been reliant on them – especially at times of crisis.  Books of yesteryear that depicted a 'hyperglobalist' world like The End of the Nation State and The World is Flat always were rather silly. 

Besides the obvious reality, there are other arguments why coronavirus is 'killing globalisation as we know it'.  Phillipe Legrain, a writer who popularised the case that globalisation has been broadly a positive phenomenon through greater cultural diversity and rising international prosperity, argued at the beginning of March that the pandemic was likely to result in three outcomes.  First, it will see streamlined supply chains – and not just in respect to pharmaceutical and food supply.  About half of world trade is between contractors within supply chains.  The iPhone is only one example.  Apple has simplified it in recent years, but still has 8 suppliers (who in turn outsource) of components to its Taiwanese manufacturer, Foxconn.  Foxconn's workers assemble the mobile device in Shenzhen, China, before distribution worldwide for sale.  Legrain thinks that companies will increasingly seek to shift investment from China (albeit usually elsewhere within Asia) and utilise where possible robotic production within their nation state.  Second, he speculates that the temporary international travel and immigration bans governments have imposed to prevent the spread of the virus will not be removed wholesale if and when the virus is eliminated.  This will have the effect of reducing international business mobility, something that had been projected to rise to $1.3 trillion worth of flights, hotel bookings etc. in 2020.  Instead, executives will continue to use the video communication forms they have turned to during the lockdown.  Third, Legrain says that the pandemic will boost the nationalism and xenophobia referred to above.  As usual, Trump is the best (or worst) example.  Amongst other things, for a time he called Covid19 the 'Chinese virus' in White House press conferences, leading to attacks on American Asians and contributing to what has been termed a new cold war between the USA and China.  A greivance ridden American nationalism is likely to be central to his campaign for re-election in November.

'It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future', can be a sound approach in an unpredictable world.  But it is possible to say certain things about what is likely to happen based on what is occurring now and what took place in the past - even with the uncertainty surrounding Coronavirus, i.e. possible mutations, a vaccine(s) etc.  The following points don't constitute a future global scenario.  But, taken together, they suggest that, whilst the pandemic may give rise to significant change, we need to be sceptical about talk of the death of globalisation now – as we should have been more critical of exaggerated claims of its extent in the past.

First, even the most pessimistic estimates of global trade only predict that it will fall to the levels of 2010.  The integration of national economies into world markets over the last 60 years through the export of goods and services, constituting a third of all economic activity, is highly unlikely to come to an end because of the pandemic.  Attempted withdrawal by governments from the world economy into self-contained national units, autarchy, would see economic Armageddon.  Foreign direct investment will fall sharply but is still estimated to be in excess of $1 trillion this year.  Moreover, FDI tends to be volatile.  It fell by 38 per cent in 2010 but rebounded to above the previous high within four years.  The projected decline this year of 90 per cent in international flights carrying tourists, business travellers and migrants is dramatic, but this is after tremendous growth.  Even with such a decline, the number of flyers will be higher than in 2003. 

Besides the empirical evidence, there is a more basic reason why the pandemic is unlikely to see the end of globalisation.  That's because its driving force, capitalism, is inherently global.  As Karl Marx, the first great analyst of globalisation, put it more than 170 years ago, 'The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie [the capitalist class] over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere'.  Capitalism faces constraints of politics and geography but in their search for profit, capitalists will always seek to evade and reduce them.  Moreover, capitalists are inclined to use the chaos generated by a crisis to remove obstacles to greater income, something referred to as 'disaster capitalism'.  Currently employers, university VCs amongst them, are dispensing with the normal procedures that pertain and cynically forcing through structural changes within their organisations to cut costs.  With the possibilities offered by enhanced video connectivity, it is inevitable that they are simultaneously investigating the possibility of outsourcing services to global locations where wages are lower.  The pandemic is likely to be seen as more than a temporary blip in capitalism's history, but not a great deal more.  One thing that would have surprised Marx is capitalism's resilience.

It is possible that some retrenchment of globalisation will take place through greater regionalisation.  Most external economic activity (trade, investment, travel) has always taken place in geographic areas, regardless of whether there is a strong regional organisation or not.  This year, the majority of trade of Asian countries will take place within others in that region.  Much of the increase in international migration in recent history has taken place because of the numbers of people moving intra Asian.  In the only part of the world where there is an effective regional organisation, Europe, the EU's future was questioned as member states responded individually to the threat of the virus.  Since then, the EU has partially overcome the opposition of key member states to put in place a modest European wide economic stimulus package for the post pandemic period.  The plans afoot to mutualise sovereign debt within the Eurozone would see a considerable advance in economic and monetary union.  Borders are beginning to open again across the Schengen zone.  It could be that post pandemic there's further regional integration in Europe (despite BREXIT), in Asia and elsewhere. 

A different type of reason to be sceptical of over blown claims about the impact of Covid19 is, as indicated, some forms of global communication (or culture) have increased their reach during the pandemic lockdown.  A recent FT survey of the top 100 corporate beneficiaries reveals that the winners (besides a small number of giant pharmaceutical firms involved in vaccines) are home shopping companies, technology firms selling computing, software, games and video and those specialising in e commerce and online payment, i.e. the companies that have been at the cusp of globalisation in recent years.  The companies are predominately American, but 3 Chinese tech firms feature in the top 20.  Predictably, Amazon's market capital increase of $410 billion easily leads Microsoft in second place, making its founder, Jeff Bezos, another $24 billion richer as of mid-April.  The video company that many quickly discovered after the lockdown for work and leisure, Zoom, has seen its stock value exceed the declining worth of the 7 biggest airlines put together.  It is in itself an interesting example of globalisation.  Zoom's owner, Eric Yuan, was born and raised in China, migrating to Silicon Valley, California, where he subsequently launched the business.  His supposed 'dual loyalty' was raised recently when Zoom gave into the demands of Chinese censors to block the accounts of dissidents involved in online commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.  More likely reasons are that that Zoom (along with the equally compliant Apple and Google) seeks access to Chinese markets, and conducts a considerable amount of its R&D in China – further indication that its economy is no longer just a giant low wage assembly plant. 

Finally, the pandemic has seen the globalisation of protest.  This aspect of globalisation has been there since the term became a buzz word in the late 1990s.  Misleadingly, the protestors at the meetings of international leaders were dubbed the 'anti-globalisation' movement by the media.  Their concerns were global inequality, injustice and environmental destruction.  The way in which the virus has disproportionately impacted on poorer and more vulnerable sections of populations – BAME communities in Britain, internal migrants in India, indigenous peoples in Brazil – is only a brutal revelation of those inequalities.  The response of Jair Bolsanaro, the Brazilian president, of 'So what?' when asked about the mounting death toll seemed to sum up the indifference of rulers.  However, the issue which has sparked worldwide protest wasn't directly related to health inequality, but racial injustice: the murder of George Floyd, an unemployed African American, by the white policeman, Derek Chauvin, now charged with murder.  It's not like killings of people of colour by the police haven't taken place in the USA (and elsewhere) before, or that video footage hasn't been circulated on social media.  The Black Lives Matter movement started in 2013 after the acquittal of a police officer for the killing of Trayvon Martin.  What was different this time was the way the lockdown concentrated the attention of a worldwide audience on the video of 8 minutes and 46 seconds as George pleaded for his life as it was snuffed out. 

As is well known, the event triggered not just demonstrations – physical and virtual - of overwhelmingly young, Black and white people across the US but the world, notably in Britain and France. These have had some tangible results in America.  When there were protests over police brutality in America in 1967 they responded by shooting dead 43 people.  The fact that the eyes of the world were trained on the unfolding events today meant that such a state response wasn't possible.  Black Lives Matter protests surely presage future worldwide campaigns over a threat of a far greater magnitude than Covid19, one that really does threaten humanity: global warming. 

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

The coronavirus recession is an opportunity to cancel all U.S. student loan debt [feedly]

The coronavirus recession is an opportunity to cancel all U.S. student loan debt
https://equitablegrowth.org/the-coronavirus-recession-is-an-opportunity-to-cancel-all-u-s-student-loan-debt/

This past March, as a coronavirus relief measure, Congress suspended payments on a lion's share of federally owned student loans for 6 months. When this temporary loan forbearance expires on September 30, it should be extended—permanently.

Many borrowers will not be prepared to begin making payments that soon. But more importantly, none of these student loan borrowers should ever have to make another payment. Cancelling these debts would benefit the U.S. economy, reduce the massive racial wealth divide, and create new opportunities for a generation of college graduates whose hopes the economy has wiped out twice in a dozen years.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES Act places federal student loans in administrative forbearance. That means debtors still owe their full debt but need not make any payments, and no interest will accrue on the loan during this period. It's a good idea to provide relief to the more than 40 million borrowers in our country, many of whom face staggering levels of debts, not to mention helping to sustain an otherwise bleak economy by putting some money in the pockets of consumers.

But this measure doesn't go nearly far enough. This debt should not merely be suspended but cancelled entirely. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, federal student loan debt was crushing the financial and career aspirations of millions of borrowers. With college costs consistently rising faster than inflation and federal grant aid to students not keeping up, the aggregate amount of student debt is more than triple its level just 13 years ago—revealing the systemic nature of the trap created by a system of debtor's education. Debt levels are especially high for Black students, who, 4 years after graduation, have an average obligation of more than $50,000, compared to less than $30,000 for the average White student. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

This higher debt load stems, in part, from the extraordinary gap in wealth between White and Black families. The median White household has 10 times the assets of the average Black family. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

Receiving less protection from parental wealth, Black students take on higher debt loads. Then, upon entering the labor market as young adults, these students face a harder time paying off their loans in a labor market characterized by racial discrimination. Evidence suggests that student debt has significant social impacts on the most vulnerable borrowers, including impeded family formation and poorer mental health. While student debt has conventionally been thought of as "good debt," the investment generates widely disparate rates of return by race, given the prevailing social framework of unequal housing and Kindergarten through 12th grade education, predatory finance, and labor market discrimination.

The past decade and a half were especially cruel to college graduates. The scarring effect of the Great Recession of 2007–2009 is well-known. Those who graduated during that recession and immediately after will, on average, earn less throughout their careers. Yet, in part because of legislation permitting higher federal student borrowing, overall student borrowing began to skyrocket, surpassing credit card debt for the first time in 2010.

In addition, during the Great Recession, adults were encouraged to wait out the poor labor market and advance their career prospects by furthering their education. Many accrued more student loan debt but not all returned to the workforce with a degree or with the substantial improvement in earnings potential needed to pay off their debt. College costs are continuing to rise faster than overall inflation and federal grant aid is lagging, causing a significant portion of the millennial generation and its immediate successors to pursue adult lives with a millstone around their necks.

Cancelling student debt during the coronavirus recession and going forward with tution-free universities would provide the greatest benefit to those who are suffering the most today. It is well-documented that people of color are contracting and dying from COVID-19 in numbers far out of proportion to their share of the population. Those service-sector jobs that don't require a college degree, where Black workers and immigrants are overrepresented, are also less likely to provide access to insurance coverage or paid sick leave than other sectors. As the saying goes, when America gets a cold, Black people get the flu, but when America gets the flu, Black folks are far more likely to die. The anger we are seeing on the streets of cities across the nation is due not only to the violence imposed on Black Americans by discriminatory law enforcement but also is inextricably intertwined with social, educational, and economic injustices all created by the same society.

The concept of cancelling federal student debt is not a new one. Congress enacted loan forgiveness programs with Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The Bush program, initiated in 2007, focused on teachers and other public servants, as well as those working for nonprofit organizations, but it is exceedingly complex. Since loans became eligible for forgiveness in 2017, fewer than 3,400 borrowers have been approved for forgiveness, though nearly 200,000 have applied.

The Obama plan, which began in 2010, aimed at a far broader swath of borrowers. It enables borrowers to make payments based on a percentage of income. It also allows for cancellation of loans, but only after 20–25 years of payment. It is too early to tell how many borrowers will be aided by the cancellation element of the program, but, as with the Bush program, the Trump administration is showing that much can be done through administrative efforts to undermine this program's intent by making it difficult for borrowers to qualify.

Cancellation of student debt was among the focal points of the recent Democratic Party presidential nomination campaigns. While some presidential candidates supported full student debt cancellation, former Vice President Joe Biden recently made a more modest proposal to forgive all undergraduate loan debt for borrowers who attended public colleges and universities, as well as historically Black colleges and universities, private minority-serving institutions, and for-profit colleges that disproportionately enroll Black students. Only those earning up to $125,000 would be eligible for forgiveness. In addition, Vice President Biden supports $10,000 in across-the-board loan forgiveness as a response to the coronavirus crisis.

There's no question this proposal goes a long way and would cancel the loans of many millions of borrowers. Loan forgiveness, however, must be complete. Partial proposals—whether they limit the amount of cancellation, limit the source of debt to undergraduates, establish income ceilings, or distinguish between public and private institutions—leave us with the same mess of rules, income verification, and administrative burdens plaguing the previous, wildly ineffective attempts and will not protect young Black people seeking to use education as a tool for social mobility. Partial forgiveness would keep in place the unfair burden carried by this generation of borrowers, who were hit hard by higher debt and a double whammy of now-two recessions. Full cancellation is simple. It doesn't pose administrative barriers, and it avoids the stigma associated with means testing.

Moreover, full cancellation leads naturally to what we consider to be the logical next step. Once Congress cancels all student debt, it should not stop there. Just as free public elementary education has effectively been a universal (though unevenly applied) economic right since the 19th century, free higher education should become the standard in the 21st century. Most young people have little choice but to pursue a college education if they wish to raise their socioeconomic standing beyond where they started out in life. And for many, higher education is a necessary step to earning a living wage. Providing tuition-free public higher education to all Americans would eliminate the social and psychological stigma associated with the current system of financial aid and eliminate the need for future generations to carry burdensome debts. 

The coronavirus pandemic, the ensuing recession, and the community response to the police killing of George Floyd and far too many other Black Americans in 2020 and beyond bring into sharp focus the barriers American society places in front of today's generation of Black students—barriers as old as our nation that continue to this day. Student loan debt exacerbates the challenges facing young Black Americans trying to establish careers and begin families. Eliminating this debt would be an important step toward reducing racial and economic inequality in the United States and bringing about the globally competitive, educated workforce that will unleash the country's overall productive potential. As Congress and American voters facing a presidential election think about big solutions to America's very big problems, this is one of the most important and effective actions we can consider.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Now is still a good time to raise the minimum wage [feedly]

Now is still a good time to raise the minimum wage
https://www.epi.org/blog/now-is-still-a-good-time-to-raise-the-minimum-wage/

With minimum wages set to rise next week in Nevada, Oregon, Illinois, and the District of Columbia—as well as in Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and 12 other smaller cities and counties—it's not surprising that business groups that always oppose higher minimum wages are calling for states and cities to put scheduled increases on hold in light of the coronavirus pandemic. There is no question that the pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for state and local economies, but the case for raising wages for low-wage workers hasn't changed. If anything, current conditions make it even more important for governments to strengthen pay standards, especially those that help low-income households.

The number one problem for businesses right now isn't excessive labor costs, it's a lack of demand. The federal government's failure to quickly implement large-scale testing, contact tracing, and containment programs in the early days of the coronavirus' spread forced most state and local governments to effectively put their economies into hibernation—limiting business activity to slow the spread of the virus. As cities and states reopen their economies, the central challenge for businesses and economic policymakers will be restoring consumer demand and making regular economic activity safe in the face of continued legitimate concern over the virus.

From a general macroeconomic perspective, raising the minimum wage in a period of depressed consumer demand is smart policy. Minimum wage hikes put extra dollars in the pockets of people who are highly likely to spend every additional cent they receive, often just to make ends meet. Workers who benefit from an increased minimum wage disproportionately come from low-income households that spend a larger share of their income than business owners, corporate shareholders, and higher-income households, who are likely to save at least some portion of the dollars that finance a minimum wage hike. As a result, raising the minimum wage boosts overall consumer demand, with research showing that past raises have spurred greater household buying, notably on dining out and automobiles. (Such findings are a good reminder that relatively small increases in a worker's paycheck might be all that is needed for them to qualify for an auto loan or a mortgage.)

Because a higher minimum wage lifts up lower-income households—although some middle-income households benefit too—it is likely to have a stronger effect than many—possibly even most—other recession response measures state and local policymakers might consider. Tax breaks or deferrals, rent subsidies, expanded lending programs, and other business-oriented relief measures all can help firms weather a downturn, but they're not going to drive additional spending in the same way that a minimum wage hike does.

It's understandable why, in a downturn, some policymakers would be concerned about the additional cost to businesses from raising the minimum wage, but expenses from a minimum wage hike are far more easily absorbed than other common business expenses. For example, if a store's rent goes up, they might be able to raise prices to offset the added expense, but there is no reason why a landlord raising the rent would mean that the store's clientele suddenly have more money to spend. However, if a local minimum wage hike drives a business to modestly raise its prices, at least the store owners know that workers throughout the local economy are receiving larger paychecks. This is one reason why decades of research have shown that businesses are generally able to absorb higher minimum wages without any meaningful negative impact on jobs.

If policymakers are genuinely concerned about aiding local small businesses, they should target support to help them adapt to the crisis and lessen non-labor expenses that are typically a larger share of operating costs anyway. For most small businesses, commercial rents are often their largest expense. The optimal policy response then would be to let minimum wage hikes go forward—helping struggling low-income workers and boosting consumer demand—and simultaneously consider some small business subsidies, such as tax deferrals, rent subsidies, special lending programs, or other supports that help these businesses ride out the pandemic. Governments might also help businesses adopt socially-distant operating practices, such as expanding availability of outdoor seating space for restaurants or providing free personal protective equipment (PPE).

Finally, it's worth noting that in current labor market conditions—when unemployment is high and workers don't have many job options available to them—employers' wage-setting power is even more pronounced. In other words, workers have even less bargaining power than usual to try to push for a raise, which is one reason why many workers categorized as "essential" have been required to work without any additional compensation for the added risk they face on the job.

In a state like Virginia, which has already delayed the minimum wage increase originally passed by the legislature, more than one in five "essential" workers have incomes at or near the poverty line. Raising the minimum wage at a time like this can help push wage levels to a more reasonable equilibrium, providing low-wage workers—who are far less likely to be able to telework—with some added compensation at a time when many are being asked to shoulder greater risk on the job. Indeed, higher minimum wages disproportionately benefit women workers and workers of color, both of whom are disproportionately represented in frontline industries and "essential" jobs.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

EPI: Trump’s ban on temporary work visas is an attempt to scapegoat immigrants during an economic collapse

Trump's ban on temporary work visas is an attempt to scapegoat immigrants during an economic collapse: Real reform would improve wages and working conditions
https://www.epi.org/blog/trumps-ban-on-temporary-work-visas-is-an-attempt-to-scapegoat-immigrants-during-an-economic-collapse-real-reform-would-improve-wages-and-working-conditions/

President Trump has issued a new proclamation "Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak," that will halt the issuance of certain major categories of nonimmigrant (i.e. temporary) work visas until the end of 2020, and calls for a number of rule changes with respect to work visas and work authorization. (A presidential proclamation is essentially the same as an executive order.) This follows his April proclamation that would suspend a third of immigrant visas from being issued (immigrant visas are also known as "green cards," which confer foreign residents with lawful permanent resident status that can eventually lead to citizenship). The language in the April proclamation, which was initially valid for 60 days, also directed federal agencies to examine nonimmigrant work visas; this new proclamation appears to be the result of that effort. Trump's new proclamation extends the duration of the April proclamation banning certain green cards until the end of 2020.

Trump's June 2020 proclamation will suspend the issuance of new temporary work visas to migrants and their family members if they are applying from abroad, between now and December 31, 2020, but does not appear to suspend the issuance of visa statuses for those applying from within the United States. The impacted visa classifications are the H-1B for occupations requiring a college degree, H-2B for low-wage jobs outside of agriculture, L-1 for intracompany transferees and personnel with specialized knowledge, and some of the major programs that authorize employment in the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program, specifically the J-1 Intern, Trainee, Teacher, Camp Counselor, Au Pair, and Summer Work Travel programs.

While most of these visa classifications are issued to applicants at consulates abroad and are therefore suspended, the H-1B is an exception. In 2019, 60% of new H-1Bs were issued to migrants who were already present in the United States, often on a student visa. Therefore, the H-1B program will be less impacted in terms of a reduction in visas. (It may even result in a higher share of foreign graduates of U.S. universities being granted H-1B status, since they'll be applying from within the country.)

The proclamation contains exceptions for migrant workers whose work will support the food supply chain or serve the national interest by being either critical to defense, law enforcement, diplomacy, or national security; if they're involved with the provision of COVID-19 medical care or research; or if their work is otherwise necessary to facilitate the economic recovery of the United States.

In addition, the proclamation calls for the Department of Labor (DOL) to promulgate rules to ensure that current migrant workers in the country with EB-2 or EB-3 green cards, or current H-1B visa holders, do not disadvantage U.S. workers—though it did not provide specific information on what they're considering in that regard. The proclamation also calls on the State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect additional biometric information from visa applicants, it prohibits DHS from issuing employment authorization documents to migrants in the United States if they are subject to a final order of removal or if they've been convicted of a criminal offense, and it directs DHS to consider promulgating regulations on H-1B that would result in an "efficient allocation" of visas, which likely means prioritizing the issuance of visas by the highest wage offers, as some government officials have recently hinted at. (A very similar order on the allocation of H-1B visas was issued in section 5(b) of Trump's Buy American, Hire American (BAHA) executive order in 2017, but has yet to be acted upon.)

There's no denying that work visa programs desperately need to be reformed in order to be fairer to the 1.6 million temporary migrant workers who are currently employed with nonimmigrant visas, and to U.S. workers. There's plenty of evidencethat temporary migrant workers can be legally underpaid and are often exploited, in part because their visas are almost always tied to one employer who owns and controls their status. That visa status is what determines the worker's right to remain in the country; if they lose their job, they lose their visa and become deportable. Visa program rules also make it easy for employers to avoid hiring U.S. workers in favor of temporary migrants, and even replace them. There is very little oversight of temporary work visa programs; in fact, most of the programs have no rules in place at all to protect migrants after they arrive in the United States, and in the programs that have rules, there's little enforcement, and frequent and extreme violators of these rules are often allowed to continue hiring. And most temporary migrant workers—despite the contributions they make—never have a chance to become permanent residents or naturalized citizens.

Nevertheless, temporary work visas are one of the few existing pathways for migrants to contribute to the United States economically, socially, and culturally—which is why every administration should prioritize reforming visa programs in ways that uplift labor standards for all and ensure migrants are paid and treated fairly, and allow them to have a chance to quickly adjust to permanent resident status. But is this proclamation an honest attempt to fix U.S. temporary work visa programs? Undoubtedly, the answer is no.

Instead of offering thoughtful reforms, it slaps a blanket ban on a handful of visa programs. And it does so during a time when almost no temporary visas are being issued. In case the administration hasn't noticed, the immigration system is already shut down, almost entirely, as a result of the pandemic, except for temporary migrant workers employed in agriculture with H-2A visas, which are not mentioned in the proclamation. We have yet to see any signs of when regular visa processing will resume at consulates abroad. Considering the number of new coronavirus infections continues to increase rapidly in the United States and abroad, it's difficult to imagine the immigration system opening back up anytime soon. Would any of the banned visas have been issued in these programs before the end of the year absent this proclamation? I'm not convinced they would have, and at least one prominent immigration lawyer also holds that view.

Even before taking office, Trump was claiming he would fix temporary work visa programs, noting in an address as president-elect that he would direct DOL to investigate visa abuses. Trump later issued the BAHA Executive Order in 2017, which called on federal agencies to improve the H-1B visa program. But so far, nothing of substance has been done to raise wages for temporary migrant workers in visa programs, or to improve conditions for the U.S. workers that are employed alongside them in similar jobs. Instead—despite the absence of new rules or worker protections—before the pandemic, the number of visas issued in the programs where most abuses occur was actually increasing.

There are also no long-term, meaningful changes proposed to fix the H-1B or H-2B visa programs. None are proposed either for the J-1 or L-1 visa programs, or the Optional Practical training program, all of which have no wage rules, no annual numerical limits (except for J-1 Summer Work Travel), and no oversight or enforcement by DOL to protect labor standards. Many of the solutions are simple and enjoy bipartisan support, but it doesn't appear that the Trump administration is engaging seriously with those ideas. For example, a real and meaningful reform of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs would require enacting the bipartisan H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, which was recently reintroduced in the House and Senate by a bipartisan group of legislators, but Trump has never indicated if he supports the bill.

In light of all this, the new proclamation looks to be mostly symbolic and is likely a political tactic to blame immigrants for high unemployment, despite that fact that they had nothing to do with causing it. The economy has lost more than 30 millionjobs because of the pandemic and federal lawmakers' failure to provide adequate support to keep workers on payrolls, failure to provide aid to state and local governments whose tax revenues have plummeted, and failure to implement public health measures that would allow the economy to reopen successfully. The proclamation is ultimately a distraction from the real problems in our economy and a blatant attempt to divide working people based on race and status.

Since he didn't try to reform work visa programs during the first three and a half years of his administration, there's good reason to be skeptical that Trump will suddenly decide to improve conditions for workers with just five months left before the general election. The fact that on the same day as the proclamation, DHS posted the text of a final regulation that will make it nearly impossible for asylum-seekers to be able to work lawfully while their claims of persecution are adjudicated, which can take years—forcing them to either starve and become homeless or work unlawfully in order to survive—should tell you all you need to know about how little Trump cares about workers and labor standards.

Furthermore, Trump's DOL has been M.I.A during the pandemic by failing to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard for workplace safety or take any significant enforcement actions to protect workers—including in industries like agriculturewhere hundreds of thousands of temporary migrant workers are employed, or in meatpacking plants where 40% of workers are immigrants. DOL's absence has been so conspicuous that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is being investigated for it.

In sum, the practical impact of Trump's proclamation on temporary work visas appears to be minimal—for now. But the ultimate message inherent in Trump's two immigration proclamations on green cards and temporary work visas has been communicated loud and clear: immigrants can and will be used as scapegoats to distract from the administration's failings.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

A Plague of Willful Ignorance [feedly]

A Plague of Willful Ignorance

Paul Krugman
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/opinion/coronavirus-trump.html

text only

Trump supporters mostly ignored the guidelines for coronavirus safety at the rally in Tulsa, Okla., on Saturday.Credit...Christopher Lee for The New York Times

In the early 20th century the American South was ravaged by pellagra, a nasty disease that produced the "four Ds" — dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia and death. At first, pellagra's nature was uncertain, but by 1915 Dr. Joseph Goldberger, a Hungarian immigrant employed by the federal government, had conclusively shown that it was caused by nutritional deficiencies associated with poverty, and especially with a corn-based diet.

However, for decades many Southern citizens and politicians refused to accept this diagnosis, declaring either that the epidemic was a fiction created by Northerners to insult the South or that the nutritional theory was an attack on Southern culture. And deaths from pellagra continued to climb.

Sound familiar?

We've known for months what it takes to bring Covid-19 under control. You need a period of severe lockdown to reduce the disease's prevalence. Only then can you reopen the economy — while maintaining social distancing as needed — and even then you need a regime of widespread testing, tracing and isolation of potentially infected individuals to keep the virus suppressed.

Most advanced countries have gone down this route. A few countries, like New Zealand and South Korea, have largely or completely defeated the coronavirus. The European Union, comparable in population and diversity to the United States, continues to record new cases of Covid-19, but at a far slower rate than at the pandemic's peak in late March and early April.



But the United States is exceptional, in a very bad way. Our rate of new cases never declined all that much, because falling infection rates in the New York area were offset by flat or rising infections in the South and the West. Now cases are on the rise nationally and surging in such states as Arizona, Texas and Florida.

And no, reported infections aren't rising just because we're doing more testing; contra Donald Trump, we can't solve this problem just by testing less. Other indicators, like the percentage of tests coming back positive and hospitalization rates, show that the Covid-19 surge is real.

It's true that deaths are still falling for the nation as a whole, although they're rising in some states. This reflects some combination of the way that deaths lag infections, better precautions for the elderly, who are the most vulnerable, and better treatment as doctors learn more about the disease.

But we're still losing around 600 Americans per day — that is, we're experiencing the equivalent of six 9/11s every month. And many people who aren't killed by Covid-19 are nonetheless debilitated by the illness, sometimes permanently.

Why are we doing so badly? A lot of the answer is that many state governments have rushed to return to business as usual even though only a handful of states meet federal criteria for even the initial phase of reopening. Epidemiologists warned that premature reopening would lead to a new wave of infections — and they were right.


Beyond that, in America, and only in America, basic health precautions have been caught up in a culture war. Most obviously, not wearing a face mask, and hence gratuitously endangering other people, has become a political symbol: Trump has suggested that some people wear masks only to signal disapproval of him, and many Americans have decided that requiring masks in indoor spaces is an assault on their freedom.

As a result, social distancing has become partisan: self-identified Republicans do less of it than self-identified Democrats. We all saw how this plays out in Tulsa, where a large (if smaller than expected) crowd gathered, mostly without masks, in an indoor setting custom-designed to spread the coronavirus.

And the next Trump rally, on Tuesday, will take place in Arizona, where Covid-19 is exploding, but where the Republican governor not only refuses to require mask-wearing but refused until a few days ago to allow local governments to impose their own rules.

The moral of this story is that America's uniquely poor response to the coronavirus isn't just the result of bad leadership at the top — although tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if we had a president who would deal with problems instead of trying to wish them away.

We're also doing badly because, as the example of pellagra shows, there's a longstanding anti-science, anti-expertise streak in American culture — the same streak that makes us uniquely unwilling to accept the reality of evolution or acknowledge the threat of climate change.

We aren't a nation of know-nothings; many, probably most Americans are willing to listen to experts and act responsibly. But there's a belligerent faction within our society that refuses to acknowledge inconvenient or uncomfortable facts, preferring to believe that experts are somehow conspiring against them.


Trump hasn't just failed to rise to the policy challenge posed by Covid-19. He has, with his words and actions — notably his refusal to wear a mask — encouraged and empowered America's anti-rational streak.

And this rejection of expertise, science and responsibility in general is killing us.

Trump supporters mostly ignored the guidelines for coronavirus safety at the rally in Tulsa, Okla., on Saturday.Credit...Christopher Lee for The New York Times

In the early 20th century the American South was ravaged by pellagra, a nasty disease that produced the "four Ds" — dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia and death. At first, pellagra's nature was uncertain, but by 1915 Dr. Joseph Goldberger, a Hungarian immigrant employed by the federal government, had conclusively shown that it was caused by nutritional deficiencies associated with poverty, and especially with a corn-based diet.

However, for decades many Southern citizens and politicians refused to accept this diagnosis, declaring either that the epidemic was a fiction created by Northerners to insult the South or that the nutritional theory was an attack on Southern culture. And deaths from pellagra continued to climb.

Sound familiar?

We've known for months what it takes to bring Covid-19 under control. You need a period of severe lockdown to reduce the disease's prevalence. Only then can you reopen the economy — while maintaining social distancing as needed — and even then you need a regime of widespread testing, tracing and isolation of potentially infected individuals to keep the virus suppressed.

Most advanced countries have gone down this route. A few countries, like New Zealand and South Korea, have largely or completely defeated the coronavirus. The European Union, comparable in population and diversity to the United States, continues to record new cases of Covid-19, but at a far slower rate than at the pandemic's peak in late March and early April.

But the United States is exceptional, in a very bad way. Our rate of new cases never declined all that much, because falling infection rates in the New York area were offset by flat or rising infections in the South and the West. Now cases are on the rise nationally and surging in such states as Arizona, Texas and Florida.

And no, reported infections aren't rising just because we're doing more testing; contra Donald Trump, we can't solve this problem just by testing less. Other indicators, like the percentage of tests coming back positive and hospitalization rates, show that the Covid-19 surge is real.

It's true that deaths are still falling for the nation as a whole, although they're rising in some states. This reflects some combination of the way that deaths lag infections, better precautions for the elderly, who are the most vulnerable, and better treatment as doctors learn more about the disease.

But we're still losing around 600 Americans per day — that is, we're experiencing the equivalent of six 9/11s every month. And many people who aren't killed by Covid-19 are nonetheless debilitated by the illness, sometimes permanently.

Why are we doing so badly? A lot of the answer is that many state governments have rushed to return to business as usual even though only a handful of states meet federal criteria for even the initial phase of reopening. Epidemiologists warned that premature reopening would lead to a new wave of infections — and they were right.


Beyond that, in America, and only in America, basic health precautions have been caught up in a culture war. Most obviously, not wearing a face mask, and hence gratuitously endangering other people, has become a political symbol: Trump has suggested that some people wear masks only to signal disapproval of him, and many Americans have decided that requiring masks in indoor spaces is an assault on their freedom.

As a result, social distancing has become partisan: self-identified Republicans do less of it than self-identified Democrats. We all saw how this plays out in Tulsa, where a large (if smaller than expected) crowd gathered, mostly without masks, in an indoor setting custom-designed to spread the coronavirus.

And the next Trump rally, on Tuesday, will take place in Arizona, where Covid-19 is exploding, but where the Republican governor not only refuses to require mask-wearing but refused until a few days ago to allow local governments to impose their own rules.

The moral of this story is that America's uniquely poor response to the coronavirus isn't just the result of bad leadership at the top — although tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if we had a president who would deal with problems instead of trying to wish them away.

We're also doing badly because, as the example of pellagra shows, there's a longstanding anti-science, anti-expertise streak in American culture — the same streak that makes us uniquely unwilling to accept the reality of evolution or acknowledge the threat of climate change.

We aren't a nation of know-nothings; many, probably most Americans are willing to listen to experts and act responsibly. But there's a belligerent faction within our society that refuses to acknowledge inconvenient or uncomfortable facts, preferring to believe that experts are somehow conspiring against them.



Trump hasn't just failed to rise to the policy challenge posed by Covid-19. He has, with his words and actions — notably his refusal to wear a mask — encouraged and empowered America's anti-rational streak.

And this rejection of expertise, science and responsibility in general is killing us.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Plastic Dilemma: A Brief Essay on a Big Problem [feedly]

Plastic Dilemma: A Brief Essay on a Big Problem
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/23/06/2020/plastic-dilemma-brief-essay-big-problem

In the wake of COVID-19 Scott L. Montgomery sketches the outlines of the world's plastic problem, providing some of its key details, and also some of the major challenges faced in dealing with it effectively.

In the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic, massive changes in energy use have happened. Transport and oil demand have fallen, in some places dramatically. Many say this is temporary. China's oil use has nearly recovered, while other countries are relaxing restrictions. Some say car sales will die, others that electric vehicles will come alive, still others that airlines will be years in convalescence. Uncertainty reigns nearly everywhere. Not, however, in a domain of oil use often overlooked in climate discussions yet that is set to soar.

Overlooked, Not Hidden

Oil demand by the petrochemical industry has grown almost without pause since the late 1960s. Just this year, a massive new port opened in Texas nearly doubling US exports in the sector. The industry is the most energy-intensive in existence, and its core products—a wide variety of materials gathered under the title "plastics"—has increased in volume seven-fold over the last four decades, from 50 million tonnes in 1980 to 359 million tonnes in 2018.

The gods and mortals of chemical invention have been busy. New types of plastic and new applications for them have been a constant and a core part of growth. Such work has contributed directly to new consumer products from cellphones and laptops to CT scans and electric cars. In this sense, petroleum has come to penetrate societies worldwide far more than any other single resource besides air or water. To date, precious little in the realm of petrochemicals has come from non-fossil feedstocks, like biomass.

Plastic waste has drawn huge attention for necessary reasons. On the macro level, it forms choking masses in the oceans and ugly heaps in landfills everywhere, providing images that seem to threaten the interring of Earth's entire surface. At a micro level, it is everywhere—air, land, water, rain, snow, food, drink, bodies. That it returns to haunt our own interior seems a form of revenge, except that the same is true for so many other species too. Some plastic is naturally degradable, with the timing for this ranging from years to centuries. Yet in many cases, the products include toxins that themselves are more resistant. In all cases, however, waste is a product of use, therefore production, driven by demand.

Plastics begin with the production of several starting materials made from oil and, to a lesser extent, natural gas. Most important among these materials are the chemicals ethylene (C2H4) and propylene (C3H6), with the former responsible for a greater range of products. Both are produced mainly from oil. In 2019, the global market for ethylene was $222.1 billion, but annual revenues for finished products were well over three times as much. Since 2015, the ethylene market has grown at a compound annual rate of 5.25%. Expansion is forecast to continue at a somewhat lower pace of around 4%-4.5%, which would mean world production doubling by the mid-late 2030s. This closely tracks the overall rise in plastics production, which has greatly outpaced many other sectors of global industry, including aluminum, steel, and cement, since the 1990s.

Growth in Demand

Much of this growth is due to rising demand for products made from ethylene's main derivative, polyethylene. As its name suggests, this is created by linking ethylene units together into chains, which can vary in length from a few dozen to millions of units. Such huge variety supports a nearly equal diversity of plastic materials whose density, strength, durability, thermal conductivity, and other properties encourage applications in every sector of the modern economy. This means from industry and commerce to agriculture and construction, including electronics, solar panels, wind turbine rotors, toys, sports and medical equipment, cosmetics, eyewear, fabrics, insulation, yoga pants, packaging, and a great deal more (note: agrochemicals, fertilizers and pesticides, are not produced from ethylene but from other starting materials like ammonia, toluene, and benzene). At higher densities and strength, these plastics can even replace steel, e.g. in bone joint replacements. They are also specifically designed for unique projects that range from thin films in scientific research to body armor, airplane wings, and building materials.

In blunt but realistic terms, there is no area of modern life where plastics haven't found use. Reasons for this are many but have a great deal to do with the immensely diverse and adaptive capabilities offered by this realm of human invention. It is neither an accident nor an oversight that plastic is used today to make cars lighter, safer, and more fuel efficient and to have a key part in every kind of "clean" technology, from lithium-ion batteries to LEDs (and, as noted above, renewable energy technologies as well). It is a point to be noted. Ridding the world of plastics does not appear a realistic option, any more than blithe acceptance of the waste problem.

Global demand for plastic worldwide, meanwhile, has been geographically shifting. According to recent analyses, such demand until the last decade was largely concentrated in Europe and North America. It has more recently moved to Asia and is expanding elsewhere. Wealthy nations currently make much greater use of plastic materials than developing countries, yet those with strong economic growth are rapidly catching up. Present and future demand growth are estimated to be highest in nations with rising incomes and a rapidly swelling middle class. This includes nations like China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Chile, and Peru, among others. Demand has also been growing in sub-Saharan Africa, which is likely to a major new center of use by mid-century.

Expanding plastic use correlates quite closely with more modern lifestyles and also technological development. This is especially true in areas like electronics, private vehicles, new housing, advanced medical care, and consumer goods in general. Over time, that is, plastic has come to progressively replace wood, metal, glass, and stone, which are heavier, less resilient, and often more expensive. Another important change furthering plastic demand has been food packaging, as populations with more income expand their diet from exclusively local foodstuffs to more diverse, transported, and increasingly imported items.

Regarding oil, this suggests a big change might be in the wind. Analysts today speak regularly about a coming peak in oil demand. Some say it may have already arrived with the pandemic. Either way, it will be aided by near-term increases in transport fuel economy and the spread of electric vehicles. Such a scenario would mean that oil's real future lies with chemicals, not fuels. Would this be a good thing? In one sense, yes. The world wouldn't be burning so much petroleum. But like so much else in the energy domain, the final answer is not so clear.

Double Role of Oil

Ethylene is mainly produced from oil. Petrochemicals account for as much as 14% of global oil demand, a major amount, due to the double use of oil as a raw material for ethylene and a fuel for the combustion-related reactions that produce it. Indeed, 14% is no trickle, especially when considering forecasts showing this level could double in the next 2-3 decades. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), petrochemicals "are rapidly becoming the largest driver of global oil demand." Between now and 2030, they are expected to increase the need for oil more than any other use sector.

Two major feedstocks from oil are especially important for making ethylene: naphtha, a fairly light hydrocarbon (C5-6H6-12) produced during crude oil refining; and ethane (C2H6) , a secondary component in natural gas and one of several Natural Gas Liquids (NGL; such gases also include butane, propane, and pentane, among some others). Naphtha has been increasingly generated by new refineries located in the Middle East and Northeast Asia. China, however, has been replacing some of its oil-derived naphtha with that from coal, which it has in abundance.

North America, on the other hand, is the world's largest ethane producer. This feedstock was previously in limited supply but has exploded in abundance due to NGLs coming from the surge in shale oil and gas due to the fracking revolution. As it is cheaper to make ethylene from ethane, the US is becoming a highly competitive exporter, and hundreds of $billion has gone toward investing in new petrochemical facilities to become operational over the next 10-15 years. Here, there are real problems of pollution and impacts on nearby populations. It is not without reason or despair that a portion of the lower Mississippi River south of Baton Rouge is well-known as Cancer Alley. In this area, where more than 200 industrial facilities already exist, Shell and the Taiwanese company Formosa have applied to build two of the largest petrochemical plants in this area's history, at $6 billion in the first case and $9.4 billion in the second.

Both of these projects will include "crackers." This kind of facility is the most energy intensive (fuel consuming) part of a petrochemical complex. It includes a row of furnaces that heat the naphtha or ethane (or other feedstock) in the presence of steam to a temperature of 750-850 deg. C, where chemical bonds break, or "crack," yielding new molecules, including ethylene. Cracking furnaces use significant amounts of water for steam, which prevents the formation of carbon-rich deposits, or coke, from the reaction. They also burn large amounts of hydrocarbon fuel, liquid or gas, giving oil a double role as a source of both feedstock and fuel.

The combustion process and steam reaction, together with flaring of unwanted gas fractions, create emissions of CO2 nitrous oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Improvements in efficiency and other technological aspects have reduced such emissions, but release of CO2 remains high. In 2018-19, carbon emissions were around 0.9 gigatonnes (Gt), a figure projected to rise rapidly with expanding plastics demand unless methods of carbon capture and storage are introduced. Were this figure to double by the 2030s, as forecast, it would approximately equal the CO2 emissions from the entire aviation sector (pre-pandemic). Were it to triple, it would exceed the 2.4 Gt of all medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

At present, oil is playing yet another part in the advance of petrochemicals. This has to do with its low price and large over-supply on the global market. Part of this is due to the astounding surge in U.S. production, again due to shale development, but it has also been built by rises in output from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. The result—which has been true during the pandemic—is to make naphtha and oil-derived NGL especially cheap. These lower costs coupled with demand growth described above have given companies much reason to invest in new plants. As many as 470 projects are at various stages in 2020, with the largest number in the Asia-Pacific (mostly China), U.S., Russia, and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt), but others in Africa (Nigeria), Latin America (Brazil), and Western Europe (Netherlands). Some in the industry (and many observers) are worried that all this new investment will create excess capacity and bring a price crash. Readers here, however, might find such massive expansion daunting for other reasons.

Waste Not, Want More

With the above realities understood, it makes sense to deal more directly with the waste problem. There's little doubt that this represents a young elephant now in the room that threatens to grow up fast. There is some good news here however, and some other news.

On the good side, the petrochemical industry has come to appreciate the power of imagery. This includes a stretch of beach heaped with containers, tubes, and plastic nets; a dead pelican its belly burst open with colorful lids and lighters; or a mountainous landfill of bottles and bags crawled over by birds and half-clad boys. The industry understands such views give it a dark halo in the public eye. If discussion at a recent Global Plastics Summit be any indication, industry leaders know things have to change. As described by one observer, ideas of a "circular economy" with "attention towards environmental concerns has created significant challenges and opportunities…across the globe."

Then there are the key facts, the "other news," summarized in two important studies. The first is an oft-mentioned paper in Nature, revealing that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (largest in existence), located between the U.S. mainland and Hawaii, is roughly 1.6 million km2 in size, i.e. France, Spain, Germany, and the UK combined. While some portion may break down under the combined effect of sunlight and saltwater, the i product will be microparticles suspended in the water column and deposited on the sea floor, thereby gaining a higher probability of becoming part of food webs. The second study appeared in Science and calculated that only about 9% of all plastic produced by 2015 had been recycled. Another 12% had been incinerated, adding to toxic fumes and carbon emissions and the remaining 79% sent to landfills or litter.

The Science study is troubling for several reasons. Common claims are that 20% - 25% of all plastic is recycled in advanced countries (more in Europe!). In many Western cities, we have grown happily accustomed to seeing green-colored garbage trucks come to collect our urban waste, including plastic items, every week. But, in fact, this is often a mask. Up to half of plastic waste collected by recycle programs ends up being sold to developing countries—particularly China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Bangladesh, and Turkey, where it is mostly put into landfills or incinerated. Further behind the scenes, moreover, lies a black market trade in plastic waste, one that has been greatly expanded since China stopped accepting most foreign plastic waste in 2018, reportedly because it can no longer do this while dealing with the rising volume of its own waste. China's precedent has been partly followed by other countries, like Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. This has meant the shifting of waste to poorer nations, like Cambodia, Laos, and Ethiopia. In all of these places, environmental rules tend to be fewer and much less enforced than in wealthy nations.

Observations and Conclusions

In view of the above facts and realities, there are a number of points that can be made about the status of the world's plastic dilemma at present.

1. The current mantra of "reduce, reuse, and recycle" tends to place responsibility on the consumer, so will not solve the problem. Yet it does highlight the "circular economy" idea, which seeks to keep materials and products in use, restricting creation of waste. 

 

2. Bans against certain plastics (e.g. single-use bags) can be helpful though not a solution. If widespread and combined with regulation, bans may pressure companies to reduce such forms. Calling for less plastic overall, however, is unlikely to succeed given the scale of rising demand in developing countries.  

 

3. Reuse is a sensible and feasible element to control waste in some forms, e.g. containers and bottles. Industry must be involved to better design these forms for safe, repeated use. This requires incentives and, possibly, regulations.  

 

4. Most plastic cannot be recycled using mainstream technology. This is true for any plastic contaminated by food, dyes, glue, glass, or other substances (most packaging, sports equipment, toys, etc.). Due to low oil prices, recycling facilities have struggled in most wealthy nations and have not greatly affected the plastic waste stream.

 

5. Molecular ("advanced") recycling reduces plastic back to its original feedstock (e.g. ethylene) and is viewed by many in industry as essential to dealing with waste. Such recycling, utilizing present and emerging technologies, faces a number of challenges—technical, logistical, economic—that keep it from large-scale use.  

 

6. Use of bio- or "renewable" feedstocks represent a possible solution for certain plastics, able to reduce both waste and emissions. So-called "green plastics" currently have limitations, such as less durability (2-5 year shelf life) and higher cost. They cannot now replace petro-plastics but are advancing and, by 2019, were  3% of the global market.  

 

7. There exists an important, unresolved debate between burying waste to sequester its carbon and incinerating it to generate electricity or district heating. If the first option does little for the waste dilemma, the second can release dioxins and makes climate sense only with carbon capture & storage (CCS), currently non-commercial. Europe reportedly incinerates 42% of its plastic waste, the U.S. 12.5%

 

8. Though the petrochemical industry does understand the waste and emissions problems, it seems to lack the needed incentives to make major changes and pursue opportunities that would improve sustainability. This is partly because the industry remains highly fragmented, unguided by consistent or international standards, and reluctant to take on new areas of cost that might impact competitiveness.

 

9. The company or companies that do successfully evolve toward more sustainable production of plastics stand to gain an enormous competitive edge. A key part of this involves transforming waste into raw material, thereby lowering demand for virgin plastic, reducing emissions, and advancing the circular economy.

 

10. Solving the waste problem will require much R&D investment. Though current thinking would leave this to industry, there are strong arguments for public-private partnership. The problem affects people and the natural world directly. Good stewardship of the environment and climate is fully shared by government and industry.

These conclusions are far from the final word on this pressing subject. I have tried, instead, to sketch the outlines of the problem, some of its key details, and also some of the major challenges faced in dealing with it effectively. I have left out important realities, those dealing with the political dimensions, industry culture, the realm of accusations and claims-making, and more. There's no doubt that the struggles and battles being fought here reflect those in other areas of fossil fuel use. But they are different, too, in that the reality of all the materials and products gathered under the word "plastic" are now commensurate with daily life in modern societies everywhere. The transformations needed here are as profound as any needed in the face of growing climate impacts.

 

 

Scott L. Montgomery is an author, geoscientist, and affiliate faculty member in the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. He has 25 years' experience in the energy industry, where he worked on projects in many parts of the world. His many technical publications include papers, monographs, articles, and textbooks, mainly focused on cutting edge hydrocarbon plays, technologies, related impacts and issues.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed