That seems a fair criticism. The BBC has often been accused of putting too much opinion into its news stories, rather than just sticking to facts. This seems an example of that, and the blog apology was the least that might have been expected (I guess no media organisations like to apologise for their mistakes.

If it makes Chinese people feel any better, the BBC has also been accused of being anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Palestinian, anti-Zimbabwean, anti-UK government, anti-Christian and of being biased on the subject of manmade global warming. Pretty much every mistake is pounced upon by partisans of one side or another. Like most western media outlets, the BBC tends to report bad news much more than good, which can give negative impressions of the countries it reports on. This is true of China, where the majority of BBC news coverage is of mine disasters, food scares, riots, environmental problems and suchlike. But it's also largely true of BBC coverage of the UK and other countries too.

__________________
No Fear No Hate No Pain No Broken Hearts

You certainly have the freedom to do so. Perhaps one day you can even claim credit for being the one who invented this, when and IF it garners enough consent from any serious news outlet such as the New York Times, the Guardian or Die Zeit.
First of all, have you ever seen me demanding explanation from the “western media” as a whole? Secondly, IIRC, the great majority of the protests staged by Chinese were calling for explanations or apologies from specific media outlets or news commentators, e.g. CNN, BBC or Jack Cafferty. Your ill-constructed analogy simply doesn’t apply here.
I don’t know if it’s worth continuing our discussion here if you keep on making things up like that. This is directly quoted from my post numero uno on this forum:
You can find more evidences of my discretion in this very thread. For example, in my first response to your claim that “My whole point of saying I don't watch CNN was to show that there's no such thing as western media.” I said:
Perhaps you need to check the fact before you post next time?
What’s so wrong with lumping a bunch of media outlets in the west that made biased reports together and calling them “some western media” when we are discussing biased journalism? I can’t comprehend why you got so fired up that you had to use big red font to say “there’s no such thing as western media”. It’s really an eyesore. Furthermore, your numerous posts that lump all Chinese supporters here into some “creepy” Chinese nationalists or CCP apologists who “all say the exact same things, commit the exact same fallacies, have the exact same strategies to deviate from the main argument and are all incredible dismissive of criticism.” were among the worst of its kind (over-generalization, lumping, …)
Please allow me to point out the logical flaw in your argument above. Yes, as of today, the majority (barely) of the people in China still live in the country side. According to the 2007 Urban Development Report of China, the urban population in China is ~594 million. However, what you failed to take into account is that the majority of Chinese internet users reside in urban areas. Even IF none of the country side residents have internet access at home, it still wouldn’t invalidate the statistical data I showed earlier that only ONE THIRD of Chinese netizens access the internet by visiting internet cafes. Therefore, your argument that “MOST people access the internet that way (in internet cafes) in China”, based on your limited experience in China, is WRONG according to the statistics. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you do make mistakes or uninformed conclusions from time to time?

“35 million (broadband accesses)/1.3 billion (Chinese population)”. Does this number support your argument that “most Chinese people surf the internet in cybercafes”? No, because you have conveniently chosen not to differentiate: (a) the number of broadband subscribers and the number of internet users; and (b) the population of China and the number of internet users in China (which was ~221 million as of last month). Factoring in the fact that each DSL or cable modem line is likely to be shared by multiple users, especially in China, where broadband access sharing is often not limited to family members, but sometimes also extended to neighbors; it doesn’t help with your argument at all.

Now, for the Nth time, I would like to remind you that I was not arguing whether the majority get their information from one source, or whether the censorship in China limits the amount of information that people receive, but whether there are multiple sources. Yes, or no, simple question. Changing subjects to justify an erroneous claim is futile.

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Since 500 years ago, the west started setting fire everywhere in the world, after 500 years, the west cannot even bear a torch. --Annonymous

Didn’t I give you the reason several times already?
First thing first, I don’t know where you got the idea that CCP doesn’t care about deforestation in China. They might not fight this problem the way you want it, but not giving a s***?

Secondly, what if the Chinese government is not doing its job well? Does it give Japanese people the green light to aggravate the problem by continuing their non-environment friendly lifestyle of consuming unproportionally large quantity of disposable chopsticks, simply because they are imported from China and not causing deforestation in Japan? I think it would be extremely short-sighted if we don’t tell more people about the severity of this problem. The planet we all live on is everyone’s earth, and the sandstorm coming from China’s desert area will not stop at its border (see, for example: Second Sand Storm Blankets South Korea).

Finally, what if I cannot change the way things are run in China? Do I lose my right to suggest other ways to help? By bringing up Japan, I was expecting to bring awareness of this problem to more people who can contribute. What else do you think? To be an apologist?

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Since 500 years ago, the west started setting fire everywhere in the world, after 500 years, the west cannot even bear a torch. --Annonymous

I was hoping this would sound so foolish you could realize the idiocy behind such logic. Obviously, every single thing has to be explained to you. The CBC has called the Chinese police, the Communist Police. Yay, let's have faulty, constructed and misleading terms because mainstream media determines all that is right and wrong.

So you just pose your criticism for whatever western media is for no apparent reason.

No one on these forums project any of this what's so ever.

You don't understand, just the term western media is misleading and factually wrong, like race, or oriental.

Because this group IS nationalist and DO have the exact same arguments. Media within all the countries in the "west" vastly differ. I'm not out against all concepts of groups and solidarity, merely ones that don't make sense. I don't understand how you can't see that. You just watch a few American and British report, maybe sometimes French and generalize it to include pretty much any country (what the hell does western mean?)

I didn't fail to account it, that was my whole point.

I gave you the statistics.

I'll concede that it doesn't, but I'll also make sure to remind you that the argument was where people were getting their information from; and the internet does not form a viable alternative to the monopoly of information that the CCP has.

See above.

No, most still get it from the government, if not, by other medias censored by the government. Thank you very much.

__________________

Well, the CCP is the patriarch of all authority in China. If anyone can stop it, it's them. I thought authoritarianism could do things faster, seems like if they gave a damn, they'd stop the practice right away, but no, it's been since 2001 and still nothing. So yeah, it's fair to say the CCP doesn't give a shit.
There isn't a million way to do the job. There's no such thing as my way, or the CCP's way. You either stop the industry, or you don't give a shit, or you don't give a shit and you say you do. When a party has ultimate control over everything, it only means that its responsibility for the well being of the country is that much higher. The CCP put themselves in that situation, and ought to act accordingly. By a single stroke of pen they could legislate against the wood industry, but I guess they're not even competent enough to do that Poor CCP, I really feel sorry for it....
Again, stopping consumerism out of virtue is only trimming the weed, whether it's in China, Korea, Japan or anywhere else. In terms of consumerism Japan and Korea are just as guilty, but China has the added responsibility of supply and this plays the ultimate role.
Sure, add Japan into the mix, talk to Japanese stores and restaurants, it's good, but I know you're just trying to divert the blame away from the CCP, the CCP is the main culprit in it, and you would know it full well if you'd put aside your nationalism for a second.

__________________

Your solution (banning the production of single-use chopsticks) is not only impractical, but also naive. Here is a quick run-through of some vital facts related to the controversy surrounding the disposable chopstick industry.

First of all, starting in 2004, China no longer issues the 13% tax refund for single-use wood chopstick exports. As a direct result, in the first quarter of 2005, the wood chopstick exports increased by a mere 0.8% to ~23,000 tons, while the bamboo (see below) chopstick exports increased by a whopping 55.5% to ~12,000 tons. More importantly, on April 1st, 2006, China started to tax the single-use chopsticks as a way to discourage its use and exports. In April 2006, chopstick exported from Dalian (70% of single-use chopsticks exported to Korea and Japan leaves China from Dalian) decreased 40% to 1773.2 tons from 2969.3 tons in April 2005. On the other hand, one of the biggest reason restaurant owners chose the single-use chopsticks is its low cost, thus heavy taxation on its use would definitely help convince them to switch to the more environmentally friendly reusable ones. Does this look like a government who doesn't give a damn on the deforestation problem it faced?

Secondly, the problem is not simply how many chopsticks are made, but also how they are made. Bamboos are considered as rapid replenishing resources, with an average growth time of ~3-4 years. Wood disposable chopsticks are often made out of birch and poplar, which take over 20 years to grow. Ideally, they should be made out of the more sustainable bamboos, or out of scraps. Unfortunately, because of the higher cost associated with making chopsticks out of scrap materials, many disposable chopstick manufacturers use the whole wood with low efficiency (only ~60% of material from the round wood are used) because of the low technology employed. Further, unlike in Japan, where the timber industry applies the 间伐 (cutting one tree while leaving many surrounding it untouched) method, some Chinese logging companies did in a destructive way by cutting down acres of trees leaving few untouched. Moreover, in Japan, many of the single-use chopsticks are washed and recycled to make paper. China needs to learn a lot from Japan in efficient use of the wood resources.

Thirdly, the wood consumed in the disposable chopstick industry made up only a small percentage of the total consumption in China, which if regulated properly (i.e. using exclusively scraps or bamboos, and recycle after use), can be turned into efficient use of natural resources rather than an environmental disaster. On the other hand, your single stroke of pen will put 100,000 people (that's how many people who were employed in the single-use chopstick industry in 2001) out of job instantly, and that’s something you failed to take into account. A radical approach like yours may look good on the paper, but is not necessarily the best approach.

Fourthly, consumption is the driving force of the production. If no one is using the single-use chopsticks, no one will be making them. I think it is important to let people know the severity of the problem, and let them make an informed decision. In this sense, Japan is every bit responsible for the environmental problem associated with the disposable chopsticks (200 pairs consumed per person annually!). Japan invented the single-use chopsticks, and started moving plants to other countries in the 1990s. When the first batch of Chinese made chopsticks entered the Japanese market, some manufacturers in Japan suggested to the Japanese government to limit the quota imported. However, in 1999, Japan lowered the tariff for chopstick imports from 5.2% to 4.7%. I think that reflects Japan’s attitude towards imports that may cause environmental problems in other countries. So yes, China will have to help itself instead of relying on other people's virtues (but that doesn't mean that we should just ignore problems in other places). It is unfortunate that China is going through what many developing countries went through: economic development at the cost of the natural resources and environment. Luckily, the government has realized the problem, and started to put a curb on this kind of destructive mode of economic development. The root of the problem, however, still lies in the consumption. China may one day ban the disposable chopstick manufacturing, but as long as we don’t tackle the problem of consumption, the desert may just emerge in Russia, or Chile, etc.

Finally, if you insisted on believing that my intention was to divert the blame away from the CCP by bringing up Japan, I wouldn’t be able to change it for you. I can only hope one day you will see it that not all Chinese supporters are nationalists or apologists.

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Since 500 years ago, the west started setting fire everywhere in the world, after 500 years, the west cannot even bear a torch. --Annonymous

I wanted people to know the side of the story that was rarely heard here. Most forum posters here are smart enough to make their own judgment after hearing all sides of the story.

I have posted links showing what the protesters demanded, but you obviously chose not to look at it, and declared that no one on these forums project any of this whatsoever.

I agreed that some arguments by some Chinese supporters here are not all that valid, but you were genaralizing it to include all Chinese supporters. Further, I have learned that it's better to discuss issues rather than posters on this forum.

So you gave me the statistics that doesn't support your argument. Do I miss something here?

Those were not the arguments I contested. I never questioned the censorship of internet, or the overwhelming influence of the state-run media in China. I contested two of your arguments:

(1) the majority of the Chinese internet users surf the web in cybercafes (I gave you the statistics showing otherwise, and that statistics was quoted from the associated press);
(2) there is only one source in Chinese media (I gave you alternative sources which are accessible in China).

Are you right or wrong on these two arguments?

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Since 500 years ago, the west started setting fire everywhere in the world, after 500 years, the west cannot even bear a torch. --Annonymous

That's for export, now to the biggest market for these chopsticks
And none of this explains why it isn't outright outlawed. I thought the reason for China's authoritarianism was to do things quicker, why is it imposing a gradual and slow resolution against chopsticks when it could single handedly ban it.

All the more reason to simply ban the industry.

Need to save every tree with that growing desert in the west. 100 000 is nothing to the amount of farmers that lost their land and will lose their lands due to desertification. Further, there are many viable substitute industry these people can go into (manufacturing plastic/metal/bamboo chopsticks whose demand for workers will grow enormously due to the lack of disposable chopsticks) since they have the experience and expertise, whereas there is little substitute to growing food and arable land. It's not like China will switch to forks and knives because there are no more disposable chopsticks. So the benefit of the industry is far lower than its environmental cost to the people and to the country as a whole (look at the cities invaded by sand storms). Hell, they can even hire them to replant trees if any are left unemployed, and if the state really gave a damn more than facade taxes.

You conveniently forget that without supply, there is no consumption either. Considering the concentration and adherence of the supply to the rule of law, it is far easier to attack the problem at its roots. Excepting people to do the virtuous thing is not always the best way to go for matters of the environment (look at people's negligence in the US or Canada in matters of polluting despite knowing its bad effects). The fact of the matter is that the disposable chopstick industry is a market failure. The private individuals involved have very little responsibility to the problem as they are only looking out for their best self-interest, rightfully so. The state is in charge of fixing market failures and the biggest culprit in failing to respond adequately is the CCP. You went through all these troubles, trying to point your finger at individuals and did EVERYTHING to point your finger at Japan, yet not a SINGLE mention of the CCP's fault in all of this. Does that not baffle you? No matter what Japanese entrepreneurs or consumers did, ultimately, it's the CCP that allowed them to do it, ultimately, it's the CCP that is the most affected, it's the CCP that allows the desertification to happen and ultimately, the CCP is the main culprit, yet NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF THEIR MISTAKES! Instead it's this long of a solution trying to contour around the CCP's involvement.

You can support individual policies from the CCP, but when it's so obvious that it's the CCP's main fault in every single aspects, and you do everything in the world to refuse that simple fact, that is being an apologist because of nationalism. There's no other explanation.
If you disagree, I want you to say "the CCP is the one most at fault in this matter"

__________________

You mean, you didn't want to be a conformist by conforming to all those nationalists on here. Fine, if you want, but I'm equally at right to dismiss your claims, especially when they're based on falsely constructed terms.


I have seen many, one was "France needs to Shut Up" That was really convincing in demonstrating how Chinese protesters make any sort of distinctions between people from the western hemisphere or within countries.


I'm not at all generalizing this to all Chinese, I am generalizing all Chinese nationalists, nay all nationalists in the world. If they don't like being group into a big contingency, perhaps they should stop doing it regarding people within states?

No, I gave you the statistic that supported my argument, but I conceded to another claim I made but wasn't my argument.

Those were only deviation from your original argument.

Other sources are completely meaningless if it is censored by the same body that has the monopoly over the media.

Wrong on the first statement, but still right in the real argument.

__________________

I am sorry I haven't been giving much attention to your response on this thread lately, I have been too (emontionally) occupied with other things these days. Here is my perspective on this chopsticks issue:

I don't consider myself as a frequent dine-out person. Once a month, we go shopping at a nearby mall and have lunch at its food court (Sarku Japan and Master Wok are our favorites). A few times a year, we go on a long distance trip, get some fast food (Panda Express) at connecting airports (times two for round-trips). We occasionally go to outdoor celebrations of public holidays (July 4th, Mid-autumn etc.) and buy fast-food from road-side food trucks. Most of these places provide single-use chopsticks (SUCs). That amounts to ~10-15 SUCs consumed by me annually (not including those consumed in sit-down restaurants, which I am hoping to convince them to switch to reusable ones). Multiply that number by 1.3 billion, you would estimate ~15 billion pairs consumed in China annually (the real number is 45 billion, likely because I am a below-average SUC user). You may have noticed that many migrant workers having boxed lunch near construction sites in many Chinese cities, they often use SUC as well. Unlike those sit-down restaurants, it is much more difficult for them to switch to reusable ones due to the nature of the business.

I hope you can see that a simple ban of the SUC industry is, in fact, not as simple as you thought it was. Unless you can really eliminate the consumption, there will always be need for the supply.

I told you of several alternative ways to tackle this problem.

(1) Encouraging production of SUC from bamboos. The Chinese government has passed tax laws to do so, and its positive effect is very obvious.

(2) Discouraging the use of SUC altogether by taxation. The tax incentive has already been started, although it is unclear at the moment how much effect it will have. Stay tuned.

(3) Making more efficient use of the timber resources, by using only scraps to make SUCs. After all, the wood consumed by the SUC industry is only ~1% of the total wood consumption in China; thus, it is possible to use scraps exclusively. Regulation on its production is needed. Although it may encounter some resistence, because of the associated cost increase and profit margin decrease, I think it is absolutely necessary. The actual enforcement of the law might be another problem.

(4) Recycle, recycle, recycle. I must admit that recycling is not a concept well held by normal Chinese people. If the "waste" can be sold for money, people might keep them: such as newspapers, aluminum cans. Otherwise, they usually end up as trash (SUC's likely fate after its single use). The most important thing to tackle this part is through education, plant the idea of recycling deep into everyone's head.

(5) There is a growing desert on the west. In that part of China, reforestation is the priority (there weren't many trees left for cutting down anyway). Timber industry in those areas is next to non-existent. Most of the wood consumed now are from the northeastern region. We should learn from the desert on the west, and develop a wood industry which is sustainable, and environment friendly.

Also, it's very easy to find arguments both in support of and against the SUC industry on Google. Most of them are in Chinese, perhaps because China is the most affected country. I learned a lot from reading all these debates. SUC will eventually exit from our daily lives, I just don't think its imminent banning is practical or even necessary.

That's it. Feel free to disagree and hold on to your idea of root digging. I won't comment on this further.

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Since 500 years ago, the west started setting fire everywhere in the world, after 500 years, the west cannot even bear a torch. --Annonymous