OT - Foreign Correspondant 20/6/06

[Euan]

Cars Eating China

Broadcast: 20/06/2006

Reporter: John Taylor

LEAD STORY
SERIES 15
EPISODE 38

Synopsis

A country that once ran on two wheels nowadays depends on four. After
the US and Japan, China is the world’s biggest car manufacturer. Car
ownership has quadrupled in the past decade, and shows no signs of
slowing. In China's bigger cities, the rivers of bicycles—once one of
the most vivid images of urban China—have been replaced with streets
jammed with cars, most of them, terrifyingly, in the hands of novice
drivers.

But in a country of 1.3 billion people, the growth of the motor industry
has major economic, cultural and environmental impacts – and not just in
China. Major cities are routinely gridlocked, air pollution is appalling
and the country’s thirst for oil has foreign policy and security
implications for the rest of the world.

Car ownership in Australia is around one car for every two people. In
China at the moment, it’s one for every 92. Should their ownership rates
ever equal ours, that’s an awful lot of raw materials, energy
requirements, and pollution.

“It’s not sustainable,” Lo Sze Ping, a Chinese environmentalist tells
Foreign Correspondent. “Why are we still going ahead with it? We know
very clearly by driving a car you are driving human civilisation over
the cliff … but we still do it.”

But the car symbolises freedom and status, perhaps even more in China
than elsewhere. Until the 1990s, travel within the country was
restricted. Now those controls have gone, and the car has arrived. No
wonder everyone who can afford one, wants one. It’s predicted that by
2010, there will be 55 million vehicles on the road in China.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Mike]

Euan wrote:

> A country that once ran on two wheels

Thats a bit of a myth. Most of China is covered in mountains,
and multi-speed bikes are a novelty.
And in the flat cities, where bikes were everywhere, buses,
motor scooters and trains are replacing them far more than cars.

Of course everybody wants a car. Didn't you?

 

[EuanB]

Euan wrote:

> A country that once ran on two wheels

Thats a bit of a myth. Most of China is covered in mountains,
and multi-speed bikes are a novelty.
And in the flat cities, where bikes were everywhere, buses,
motor scooters and trains are replacing them far more than cars.

Of course everybody wants a car. Didn't you?

Not now

 

[gplama]

and the country’s thirst for oil has foreign policy and security
implications for the rest of the world.

security implications? Say like the US not being able to 'secure' China's oil resources for their own use?

Cars are rad. Bikes are rad. Each serve a purpose. Its just a pity car wins out in a game of rock/paper/car-vs-bike.

 

[cfsmtb]

Of course everybody wants a car. Didn't you?

Nope. Not when your older siblings were petrol heads and just *had to* stuff around with everyone elses cars parked in the drive. I learnt to structure my transport needs without personally owning a car. Every now & again the license topic comes up, and just like every other instance over the decades, I kinda lose interest again..

 

[dave]

gplama wrote:
> Euan Wrote:
>
>>and the country’s thirst for oil has foreign policy and security
>>implications for the rest of the world.
>>
>
>
> security implications? Say like the US not being able to 'secure'
> China's oil resources for their own use?

Ummm well China is building a blue water navy as fast as it can. They
have a real nuclear deterent too. They also have an army of just on 2.3
million, rapidly modernising (and admittedly downsizing) And 10 million
militia. They have in service at the moment just on 1500 type 96 MTB
which they consider to be equivilent operationally to the 50 ABRAMS
M1A2s we will have in operation in 2015 (When they will have over 2000
type 96 MBTs in service).


If they want Bass strait we had better hope the yanks are still looking
for a fight. Becouse thats looking like serious work for the ADF alone,
Tam wont have any time left to post.

Still just a hard morning at the office for the yanks tho.

Thats not to say that anything like that will happen, Just pointing
out that thats the sort of thing meant by "security implications"


On the other hand in 10 years the balance of naval power may shift in
the direction of sail
>
> Cars are rad. Bikes are rad. Each serve a purpose. Its just a pity
> car wins out in a game of rock/paper/car-vs-bike.

Isnt it
>
>

 

[TimC]

On 2006-06-20, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> gplama wrote:
>> Euan Wrote:
>>
>>>and the country’s thirst for oil has foreign policy and security
>>>implications for the rest of the world.
>>
>> security implications? Say like the US not being able to 'secure'
>> China's oil resources for their own use?

Or vice-versa succeeding. Wars are fought over scarce resources. Oil
has now become rather more scarce than it used to be. And China has a
large demand for said.

> Ummm well China is building a blue water navy as fast as it can. They
> have a real nuclear deterent too. They also have an army of just on 2.3
> million, rapidly modernising (and admittedly downsizing) And 10 million
> militia. They have in service at the moment just on 1500 type 96 MTB

Is the type 96 MTB a dually? Will they notice if one goes missing,
when I take it for a spin out in Lysterfield?

--
TimC
Bad command. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaay. -- unknown

 

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2006-06-20, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>gplama wrote:
>>
>>>Euan Wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>and the country’s thirst for oil has foreign policy and security
>>>>implications for the rest of the world.
>>>
>>>security implications? Say like the US not being able to 'secure'
>>>China's oil resources for their own use?
>
>
> Or vice-versa succeeding. Wars are fought over scarce resources. Oil
> has now become rather more scarce than it used to be. And China has a
> large demand for said.
>
>
>>Ummm well China is building a blue water navy as fast as it can. They
>>have a real nuclear deterent too. They also have an army of just on 2.3
>>million, rapidly modernising (and admittedly downsizing) And 10 million
>>militia. They have in service at the moment just on 1500 type 96 MTB
>
>
> Is the type 96 MTB a dually? Will they notice if one goes missing,
> when I take it for a spin out in Lysterfield?
>
Hah. I missed that one.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp

Has lots of suspension bits. Will go over anything it can't go
thru.

Yeah and we are (stupidly) getting the M1 tank And I used to have an M1
rifle. Hmmmm TMA.

Dave

 

[Theo Bekkers]

dave wrote:

> They have in service at the moment just on 1500
> type 96 MTB which they consider to be equivilent operationally to the
> 50 ABRAMS M1A2s

I knew their bikes were clunkers but, an MTB that is the equivalent of an
Abrams? Geez?

Theo

 

[dave]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>
>> They have in service at the moment just on 1500
>>type 96 MTB which they consider to be equivilent operationally to the
>>50 ABRAMS M1A2s
>
>
> I knew their bikes were clunkers but, an MTB that is the equivalent of an
> Abrams? Geez?
>
> Theo



Everyone makes fun of us dys ,... dis... dars.... dyslya....
typingly retarded peoples.


Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr


Dave.
>
>