Shanghai Scrap

For those who follow these things, there’s been quite a bit of UFO news in the Chinese media over the last week. The fun started on June 23rd, with reports that a UFO had been seen and photographed near Congqing – during a laser light show. Following previous practice in covering UFO sightings, Xinhua reported the story straight-up, no commentary. And then left us hanging with this:

Shanghai UFO Research Center confirmed the pictures were not altered. The director of the center said a team will begin to examine the photos to determine if the UFO is genuine, the report said.

The Shanghai UFO Research Center? I’ve spent the last thirty minutes trying to track down these people, but with no luck. If anybody out there has contact info, I’d be very grateful for it. In the meantime, the diligent researchers at the “Above Top Secret” discussion site seem to have determined that the Congqing UFOs is nothing more than a lens flash.

[Update: A couple of helpful folks left comments providing me with the Shanghai UFO Research Center website, which can be found here.]

Which brings me to last Thursday, and the rather curious declaration – by an astronomer at the Purple Mountain Observatory in Nanjing – that UFOs “have been visiting Nanjing, the capital city of Jiangsu Province, every five to 10 years for the past three decades.” Shanghai Daily, following the above-mentioned just-the-facts approach to Chinese UFO reporting, drops this fabulous commentary-free history: (more…)

I’ve derived no small amount of pleasure – and blog posts – from the news releases on the official Beijing Olympic website. So, in thanks for more than a year’s worth of material, I am going to humbly offer (and email!) this tip that I hope will enhance Beijing’s reputation as the host of the best – and greenest – Olympics in history:

The National Stadium, or Bird’s Nest, was made from recycled steel!

Just remember: you read it first at Shanghai Scrap.

Now, I’m not sure why I’ve picked up on this fact before Olympic PR Central, especially because – this week – Olympic PR Central has been going out of its way to tell the world about the high-tech steel used to build the Bird’s Nest. Could be that – unlike me – they don’t spend much time following the ebb and flow of China’s steel recycling industry. If they did, they’d know that Wuyang Steel – the manufacturer of the 110mm Q460 steel used in the Bird’s Nest – is also one of China’s leading consumers of scrap steel. For those interested, a photo of Wuyang’s fabulous scrap piles can be found on the company’s website, here. Somewhat unrelated, but … photos of the largest (and longest!) steel scrap piles in China – or the world, for that matter – can be found in Zhangjiagang, and in this photo:

I’m not going to get into this now, but let the recycled Bird’s Nest Steel serve as one more example of the tight connection between environmentally-sound manufacturing and high-quality manufacturing (more Shanghai Scrap thoughts on that topic, here).

I’ve long been an admirer of Evan Osnos and the fine reporting that he’s done for the Chicago Tribune and the New Yorker. He has a keen and subtle eye that finds narratives, and details, where other reporters might only find platitudes.

So it was with some anticipation that I awaited his latest work, “Jesus in China,” ambitiously billed as an examination of the transformative effects of China’s ongoing, and explosive, Christian awakening. Developed jointly by the Chicago Tribune and the PBS Frontline documentary series, the project includes two components: a series of articles published by the Chicago Tribune, and a 30-minute Frontline documentary.

Osnos has received quite a bit of praise for this work, with some going so far as to call it groundbreaking. I’m sorry to say that I disagree. In many ways, in fact, I find “Jesus in China” to be a step backwards from the more nuanced understanding of contemporary Chinese Christianity that has developed over the last few years, especially from reporters (like Jim Yardley of the NYT) willing to delve into the complicated dynamics that exist in today’s “open” church communities. (more…)

It’s no secret that Chinese government purchases have long propped-up the fortunes of Audi and other luxury car brands that market to affluent Chinese (for info on this endlessly enjoyable topic, see here and here). But what’s less well known is the raw number of government-owned vehicles currently clogging Chinese roads. That is to say: just how much of China’s thriving automobile sector is being driven by government purchases? There are rumors, of course: someone who would know once told me that 30% of the cars on Shanghai’s roads belong to either party units, government units, or state-owned enterprises. Seemed a little bit high, but, then again, if it turned out to be true, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Thankfully, the Olympics have lifted the veil – at least, in Beijing.

Here’s the deal: from July 20 to September 20, 70% of government vehicles will be banned from Beijing’s roads in an effort to help clean/whitewash the city’s air for the Olympics. That ban will apply to central and municipal government vehicles, party units, and state owned-enterprises; buses and taxis are exempt (presumably, so are many of the city’s A6s).

Now, according to a spokesman for the Beijing Transport Committee, that 70% figure accounts for roughly 210,000 vehicles. Which means, by my calculation, that the Beijing Transport Committee counts 300,000 government-owned cars in Beijing, alone – or roughly 9% of the city’s reported 3.4 million cars.

[Yes, 300,000 is a bit too well-rounded for my comfort, but you take what you can get in these matters.]

On one hand, that seems like a whole lot of cars. Or, put differently, does anybody doubt that the number would be lower in an economy restrained by political accountability (ie, democracy and elections?)? On the other hand, 9% ain’t bad for an economy that’s a mere thirty years out of the total command mode.

[UPDATE: July 5, 2007: Francesco Liello responds! See comment three, below.]

Via ESPN, I learn that Francesco Liello, a correspondent for the Italian sports paper, La Gazzetta Dello Sport, ran a leg of the torch relay earlier this month in Hubei.

Liello, for those who don’t recall or follow these things, was the Italian reporter who, late last year, conjured up the totally false “Olympic Bible Ban” story – and then – when it became a minor international incident – refused to back down from it. Even after it was shown to be false.

[You can find my complete debunking of the story, here. Scroll down to the November 21 update for an explanation of how Liello's mis-reading of a single sentence in a press dossier set off the whole mess.]

So far as I’ve been able to find, prior to ESPN’s mention, Newsweek’s Melinda Liu was the only English-language reporter to write about Liello’s torch run (on June 2 -I’m late to this, I know). Oddly, though, Liu’s story fails to mention Liello’s Bible Ban story – while ESPN manages to connect the dots (late, like me).

Anyway, for a few reasons, I’m deeply heartened by Liello’s run. (more…)

I’m dealing with a new computer, jetlag, and months of statistics suggesting that Shanghai Scrap’s readers prefer Olympics-related blogging to Iron Ore-related blogging. But, you know, sometimes you have to eat your vegetables before you get to dessert. Or something like that (dessert will be served late tonight or tomorrow).

Anyway. I wasn’t planning on returning to the blog until tomorrow, but yesterday’s reports that Bao Steel and Australian mining giant Rio Tinto have finally settled upon a 2008 iron ore contract price (nearly doubling the 2007 price) have forced an early resumption.

[More Shanghai Scrap posts on iron ore: here, here, and here.]

A very brief backgrounder: traditionally, the world’s three biggest iron ore firms set their annual prices in closed negotiations with their largest customers, thus providing both parties with pricing certainty over what has typically been an unpredictable commodity. Meanwhile, firms not party to the negotiations are left no choice but to purchase ore on the open “spot” market – typically, a much more expensive option (at the moment, a three times more expensive option). (more…)

I’m on the road for a few days, and unlikely to post anything even remotely sensible before Wednesday. So, in my absence, please consider a couple of the other fine blogs in the blogroll to the lower right, or …

• China Environmental Law Blog on the Grandson of Godzilla – which has apparently appeared off the coast of Fujian. China blogging at its finest!
• Jen Ambrose on being expat and pregnant in Shenzhen – Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4. These are some of the best-written blog posts that I’ve read in months.
• Shanghaiist gathers some fantastic videos of a personal flying machine that I’d like to get my hands on.
• And last, but certainly not least, Shanghai Daily’s curious story on the PLA’s reported sponsorship of a high-end Shanghai summer camp. How did this make it past the censors? Captains and business elites, indeed.

Only days after the sports world, and the New York Times, celebrated the fact that Tiger Woods fought through a painful knee injury to win the US Open (and millions of dollars), the New York Times runs a long feature today – “China Presses Injured Athletes in Quest for Gold” – bemoaning the fact that:

Pressured by the national athletic system and tempted by the commercial riches awaiting star performers in the 2008 Games, China’s athletes are pushing themselves to their limits and beyond, causing some to risk their health in pursuit of nationalist glory.

I don’t have the time or energy (today, at least), to comb through the NYT’s archives in search of, say, their laudatory coverage of Willis Reed’s legendary appearance in Game 7 of the NBA finals – despite a debilitating deep muscle tear in his thigh; or, for that matter, Paul Pierce’s celebrated Game 1 injury heroics in the most recent NBA finals. But, needless to say, the willingness to play through injury is celebrated as much in American sport as it is in Chinese sport, and usually for the same reasons (including money on the back end). And, just like Chinese sport, long-term injury and health effects are not typically a concern of American athletes or American leagues – as evidenced by the reduced life expectancy of American football players, and Bill Walton’s knees.

But, just in case anyone out there thinks that only Chinese athletes risk their health in the pursuit of national glory and riches, let me refer you to “You Gotta Play Hurt,” a recent Fox Sports list of the top eleven (eleven?) injured sports performances in contemporary US sporting history (most of which were richly rewarded by US sports franchises that value “toughness” over “injury prone”).

————-

For the record, “China Presses Injured Athletes in Quest for Gold,” is precisely the kind of article that drives the Chinese nuts – as well as accusations that foreign media coverage of China is “biased” or “unfair.” At a minimum, one has to wish that the NYT’s editors had paused to consider why Willis Reed’s name is still invoked at Madison Square Garden when the chips are down (and they’ve been down a whole lot lately).

Spend enough time here, and you’ll think that you’re there. Specifically, Soho, Palm Springs, Manhattan, and all of those other high-end US addresses and place names that China’s real estate developers have affixed to their pricey sprawls. So, while in Wuxi earlier this week, I was pleasantly surprised to see that one forward-thinking developer had actually turned a page (of the atlas) to the Midwest. Below, a photo taken of the scale-model in the sales office:

Find me Minnetonka, and I’m sold.

On May 12, Li Jiulin, chief engineer of the Department of Contracts for the National Stadium [the Bird's Nest] was conducting a “quality” inspection of the facility when the Wenchuan earthquake occurred. Within hours, Xinhua was quoting Li on the safety of the structure. For example, the English-language People’s Daily concluded its story featuring Li by noting:

Li Jiulin contended that since the “Nest’s”designed seismic resistance scale was 8 on the Richter scale, an earthquake of a relatively small scale would not pose a threat. All the Olympic venues were evaluated for seismic safety prior to construction.

This reassurance was repeated for wider media distribution by the official voice of the Olympic media center (as reported by Bloomberg):

Olympic venues and buildings in Beijing weren’t threatened by China’s strongest earthquake in 58 years because they were constructed to withstand magnitude-8 shocks, Li Zhanjun, director of Beijing’s Olympic media center, said today.

“The venues are not at risk from earthquakes,” he told reporters in Beijing.

In one sense, this was nothing new: for the better part of five years, it’s been conventional wisdom (in China, at least) that the Beijing 2008 venues were being subjected to a stricter set of quality and safety guidelines than other Chinese construction projects. For example, I’ve had several conversations with people in the steel industry assuring me that the steel used in the Bird’s Nest is “different” (meaning, better) than what would be used (or made available) to other Chinese construction projects. Quite simply, more attention was being paid to the Olympic buildings.

Or was it?

A few hours ago, Xinhua dropped this bomb:

Beijing probes anti-quake capabilities of “Bird’s Nest,” CCTV leaning towers

The Xinhua story doesn’t come out and directly say so, but it’s quite clear that – earlier assurances aside – the CCTV Towers and the Bird’s Nest designs were not subjected to seismic testing. An extended (edited passage) … after the jump: (more…)

Spent a bit more time than expected riding the highway from Wuxi to Shanghai this morning. A scene from the dead stop, about 30 km out of town.

[June 18 Update ... at end of post.]

[and ... June 20 Update ... at end of post.]

Back in mid-May I joined millions of other China-based Olympic fans in a mad dash to order tickets on a Ticketmaster-designed system that – despite what the authorities say – wasn’t working properly. At least at first. Anyway, I eventually managed to order the tickets.

But the trouble wasn’t over, yet.

Unlike, say, in the United States, ordered, paid-for tickets don’t just show up in your mail. No, instead, China’s Olympic authorities, in their infinite wisdom, require purchasers to travel down to a designated Bank of China branch, where they much show a government-issued ID – a passport, if your’re a foreigner – to a teller, who then prints the tickets.

Fine. So, in mid-May, I wander down to the Bank of China branch, show them my passport, and wait while the teller consults with his manager (employee #37 – I remember). Then he comes back and says that – “Sorry, your passport name does not match the name in the system.” I point out to him, politely, that the name does match. And then he correctly points out that – “Sorry, but your middle name is on the passport but not on the ticket form.” To which I correctly point out – “Sorry, but the ticket form doesn’t include a space for my middle name.”

Thus ensued a discussion, that soon became an argument, that soon involved raised voices – and which finally resolved with me agreeing to certify, in writing, on the ticket acknowledgment form, that my middle name is what my passport says that it is.

Now, this happened in mid-May, and I was intending to blog about it, but after further consideration (including consideration of the temper tantrum that I threw in the bank lobby), I decided not to run the post. More likely than not, I thought, this middle-name tyranny was just the work of a lone, renegade idiot (and the idiot’s supervisor, employee #37) at the particular Bank of China branch that I was unlucky enough to visit.

Oh, how wrong I was! Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal’s China Journal ran a short piece on a rash of middle-name ticket tyranny in Beijing (h/t danwei): (more…)

Long-time residents of Shanghai know that – every June – the city’s multitude of pirate DVD shops close in advance of, and during, the Shanghai International Film Festival (five years I’ve been here, five years the shops have been shut down). That way, all of those foreign filmmakers and executives won’t see the thriving fake sector at work. And, probably more important: local officials and festival organizers won’t have to answer any embarrassing questions about the DVD shops ordinarily open just around the corner from screening sites.

Which makes me wonder: why, Saturday night, could people could be found browsing for pirate DVDs in shops just a few minutes walk from the red carpet opening at the Grand Theatre?

It’s all the more curious that those shops remained open this year, an Olympic year, during which China is enforcing and respect all of those laws that it spent the last twenty years winking away. In fact, two days before the Festival opening, Beijing announced that it was commencing a drive to crack down on those who dare to infringe on Olympic IP (and don’t even think about wishing “great success” to the Olympics at a commercial event without permission). Surely, Shanghai’s pirate DVD shops would be easy collateral in this drive?

Hardly. In fact, not only are they open, but one of the biggest (it shares a name with a US chain of video stores) managed to take out an advertisement – which included a map – in the Shanghai International Film Festival supplement published by state-owned China Daily. So much for the underground economy.

What’s it all mean? Beats me. But perhaps – as has been, ahem, rumored – visiting Hollywood studio execs like shopping at pirate DVD stores, too? Or perhaps there’s just more pirate money to be made – and spread around – than anybody guessed.