I
My way or no way
That technology becomes competitive is a given. That competition prevails in trade and contracts should be so. Yet for the umpteenth time Chinese technology has been shut out of competition in deploying 5G telephony - this time in New Zealand. This follows similar action by the United Kingdom and Australia. The palpable excuse is 'national security' and raises more questions than answers. If truly drawn out, the technology business shouldn't be competitive at all. China has been rebuffed several times from port leases on similar grounds. One wonders what the US reaction would have been to similar discrimination.
Technology transfer is one of the most sought-after aspects of trade deals and in an increasingly connected and integrated technological world, these transfers do come with risks. Mere mechanical connectivity is easier to solve but not so with hi-tech cellphone technology or port operations. Yet the questions relating to national security aren't asked when it comes to using sophisticated western technology. The electoral system ruled by voter ID processes spring to mind and usage of finger printing furthers the fact that individual privacy has gone for a toss.
In military cooperation technology transfer comes with a needs analysis and thereby handing over of critical and sensitive information. Transit trade involves more than just mapping and charting, the invariable ability to scour horizons for vital hydrocarbons are secrets no longer. Google is a classic example where personal privacy has gone to the dogs and somehow no one connects the dots between such information and so-called sacred secrets.
The occasional surprise awaits us as well. The inability to fully identify North Korea's nuclear installations in spite of the sophistication of surveillance is baffling when, decades ago, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction were so clearly identified moving around in Iraq.
The Chinese are trading sanction blows with the United States that will hurt both economies. The difference is that China has spread its tentacles deeply enough to live with alternative, if less viable trade. The US remains expensive both as an attractive export source and an import one. China has moved on from a fake manufacturer to a cheap production source. Part of it has to do with purchasing power and personal affluence of the general system. In between, the state machinery continues to sit on the largest chunk of US currency available in the world.
Sooner rather than later China will react to these rebuffs. It is too ambitious a nation to take things lying down, for too long.
=======================
II
The plastic conundrum
One of the vital cogs of the Climate Change agreement, since abandoned by the United States, is a renewed focus on recyclable packaging. That means an end or reduction to plastics and more fibre-friendly packaging. Innovation can drive unimaginable possibilities in the jute sector and it's sad that the focus is yet to be put on there. Instead plastic product exporters are seeking greater growth through incentives. Well guess what? The space is taken.
Scandinavia led by Norway already has more plastics than it can reuse, and it recycles a lot. With more and more recycling ventures afoot extending beyond plastic, the future market will dwindle quicker than can be expected. Of the estimated 300 million tonnes of plastic generated globally only 9.0 per cent is recycled and each country worth it salt is heading for some form of recycling. China with its massive outturn is just one of them. Norway is actually seeking to export its additional wastage. Sweden is experimenting in recycling waste into food production among other endeavours.
Bangladesh is notorious both in the usage and waste management of plastics leading to massive clogging of drain and sewerage systems with the obvious fallout of wastewater drainage issues. Everyone talks of it but no one acts on it. Garbage bins are slowly being more and more utilised but no state or private-run recycling activity exists. The answer is landfill, probably the most dangerous option available. It takes years for plastic to degrade anywhere near to its original form given it is a byproduct of fuel. If the dependency on fossil fuels is reduced, the byproduct will be less available.
Supershops are pushing consumers to buy biodegradable bags to the extent that some are accepting bag returns provided in good condition. For the foreseeable future plastics can't be phased out and in the meantime strict laws are required to prevent the more difficult degradable plastics from being produced. This in turn requires turnabout or reforming technology so as to adapt. Whether or not we have the stomachs to accept the additional investment is irrelevant because there is no other solution.
The City Fathers began a process of scientifically recycling waste - and sadly the foremost of the two passed away. His idea was to separate recyclables and hopefully encourage a private-public partnership for recycling. Initial spend may be significant but the outcome is far greater. There's more to recycling than re-use; it's about protecting land soil so that nutrients can regenerate. It's about not filling rivers and ponds with plastics that fish investing will land up on our own table. If not for us, for our future progeny. We owe it to them to walk the extra mile as did our ancestors who planted the trees that provide us sustainance , what's left of them.
The writer can be contacted at: [email protected]
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
