In May, I finished my master’s degree in Regional Studies–East Asia at Harvard. This month, after a long summer of travel, freelancing, research, and high-intensity relaxation, I will begin a Ph.D. in the Political Science Department at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Thus I have moved from Somerville to Seattle, where I welcome proximity to the Pacific itself, to mountains, and to excellent coffee and beer. I am also honored to join the UW’s community of scholars on East Asia and global affairs, both as a member of my new department and as an associate of the China Program at the Jackson School of International Studies.

That’s all for now, but look out soon for some news regarding my contributions to other blogs, and watch this fall for some academic work of mine to weasel its way into the public eye.

Finally, if you’re in Seattle, or if you’re coming through, drop me a line!

And now, a preview of my new digs:

An excerpt:

The very concept of balancing does not stand close scrutiny. What does it mean for India to balance China? China is developing a major navy and a string of ports of call in the Indian Ocean. India is doing the same. Most likely both are wasting precious resources because in the age of missiles and drones, ships are sitting ducks for low-cost smart bombing. …

About the only reason I can see that some are demonizing China is that some of our agencies need an enemy to justify their forces and budgets, which are still focused on conventional warfare rather than on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and asymmetric warfare, and to stay the misbegotten course in Afghanistan.

This is far from uncontroversial, but it’s an argument conspicuously missing from the U.S. public debate on China.

Greater Possibility of an Environmental Tax in the 12th Five-Year Plan [ORIGINAL IN CHINESE]

The main reason for the tax is not to increase government revenue; it is aimed at improving the ecosystem and promoting energy savings.

Ping Ya

August 9, 2010, 9:25 a.m., Renmin Wang, People’s Daily Overseas Edition—According to media reports, the issue of an environmental tax in China has reached the stage where the Ministries of Finance and Environmental Protection and the Tax Bureau are asking the State Council for instructions on implementing the tax, possibly reaching the public in 2013.

The so-called enviornment tax is an integrated policy designed to include the social costs of pollution and ecosystem destruction in the manufacture and purchase prices of goods, giving natural resources economic value through market mechanisms. What difficulties come along with proposing an environment tax? What trades and industries might such a tax affect? And why do local governments especially support an environmental tax? Su Ming, associate director of the Research Institute for Fiscal Science of the Chinese Ministry of Finance answers questions.

Environmental taxation relatively behind, overall

Q: There are a lot of rumors recently about the introduction of an environmental tax. We’ve heard several government bodies have reached an agreement. What’s the probability of the tax being introduced in 2013?

Su Ming: I think the environment tax is very important. First, in the development of the taxation system, the environmental taxation regime is so far lacking. Such a regime is important to the development of a comprehensive taxation system. Second, implementing an environmental tax will assist in ecosystem and environmental improvements and natural resource preservation goals. The central government is also very interested in an environmental tax, and has repeatedly proposed its study. I personally think it’s relatively likely the environmental tax will be included in the 12th Five Year Plan.

Q: We know an environmental tax is a system of taxes rather than an individual tax, so it’s possible levying such a tax could result in repeat taxation. For example, a carbon tax has also drawn interest. If an environmental tax were implemented, would there still be a carbon tax?

Su Ming: The environmental tax system would include the carbon tax, so the scope of “environmental tax” is larger than “carbon tax.” However, the individual taxes of the environmental tax would be introduced one step at a time rather than all at once, beginning with the most crutial. It’s important to understand with the carbon and environment tax issues that they come together.

No Resistance From Local Govermnents

Q: The idea of an environment tax was proposed many years ago, but it hasn’t yet been implimented. Where does the difficulty lie?

Su Ming: It’s easy to talk about implementing a tax, but actually doing it is difficult. Because the implementation of a tax and its collection policies involves many interests including the government, private enterprise, consumers, and individuals, the design process is multi-faceted. These interests and their relationships present the hardest challenge. Moreover, an environmental tax involves the development of some industries to the extent that it involves economic development levels, employment, macroeconomic and microeconomic conditions, and business and individual actors all affected to different degrees. Therefore, taxation policy objectively faces certain challenges.

Q: You just mentioned interest group input. In April, the Jiangxi Province government applied to have the environmental tax launch in their province. They must already have the conditions ready for an environmental tax and want to be the first experiment. How big an influence does the environmental tax have on local income?

Su Ming: The primary goal of implementing an environmental tax is not to increase government revenues. It is aimed at improving ecosystems and the environment and conserving resources. These are the original intentions of the national environment tax plan. I think increasing revenues is a secondary concern. The second way of looking at it, whether it’s an environmental tax or a carbon tax, such taxes can improve financial regulation and increase revenues. From the perspective of local governments, then, there is no reason to resit the policy. That’s my understanding.

Large Impact on High-Pollution Business

Q: If an environment tax is introduced, what industries and business will see the largest impact?

Su Ming: Simply put, the environmental tax would most effect high-emission, high-energy-consumption, or relatively large industries, for example steel, chemicals, oil, cement. But the impact is big and it isn’t. The core question is how to set up the tax rate. High and low rates have different influences, so from a feasibility perspective, I take a scholarly perspective and examine how best to start out the tax rate low, and then perfect and adjust the policy one step at a time, whether it’s an environment tax or a carbon tax.

Moreover, there are many kinds of environmental taxes. For example, in the past we haven’t called it a tax, but that doesn’t mean there was no fee leveled on any pollutant emissions. In the past we have fees to collect, so to some degree the regulation of pollutants is already in the process of changing from a fee system to a tax system. Thus in setting tax rates, we look at past fee levels. Fees and taxes thus have a certain relationship.

Here’s the documentary, and check out Ali’s other work on her site. Also available are versions of the doc with Chinese and English subtitles. See also a short video posted on The New Yorker‘s website.

[[Edit: Apparently I can't embed this video here. Click here for the video on her site, or here for the video on Vimeo.]]

I was walking home through the Harvard campus tonight and found the above sticker, which was notable because (1) such things seem to get taken down quickly, (2) I rarely see Chinese bulletins adorning American light posts, and (3) I had NO idea why this man wanted me to 多吃鸡肉吧  (eat more chicken).

I put the image on Twitter and asked what it could mean, and Le Wang quickly pointed out that it might be a Chinese version of the Chik-fil-A slogan “eat mor chikin.” I’m going to go with that for now, because, as my classmate Ella points out, it’s a bit absurd to obsess about the meaning of a random campus posting.

Last thought: Is there a similarity between this man on the sticker and the imagery of KFC’s Colonel Sanders?

(Click image for full size.)

UPDATE: I think we may have our answer! Alice Xin Liu has noticed that the face looks a lot like Mr. Lee of Mr. Lee California Beef Noodle King, a major Chinese chain. Why Mr. Lee would be rooting for chicken is still beyond me.

The early stages of the U.S.-China relationship during the Obama administration have not played out according to the usual script. The president did not promise on the campaign trail to be “tough” on China—a position he would have been forced to abandon within a few months just as Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did. In the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis, the Obama administration instead came to office wanting to preserve the stability of the U.S.-China relationship while also placing a new emphasis on joint global problem solving.

This is not appeasement. This is common respect and pragmatism born of looking down the road at a whole host of challenges where the only way forward is to cooperate with China. It is also part of a larger administration effort to mend fences around the world by listening and extending basic courtesy, both of which cost nothing.

She also outlines some of the accomplishments of Obama’s China policy so far, including progress on climate cooperation (despite the ongoing blame-game over whether China caused a failure in Copenhagen, where no one expected a full-scale deal in the first place). China and the U.S. have worked together at the U.N. on North Korea and Iran.

Hachigian notes that “China’s reaction to all of these actions—so far at least—is well within historical norms, especially given that Tibet and Taiwan touch at the core of Chinese anxieties about territorial unity and foreign intervention.”

It’s nice to see this kind of talk on China coming out of my former employer, the Center for American Progress, but I would have liked it even if I had no affection for the institution.