顶级厨师
EPA proposes banning cancer-causing chemical used in automotive care, other products_我的网站
一 |
China saw robust exports in electric vehicles (EV), lithium batteries and photovoltaic products, known as the "new three," in the first half of this year. More notably, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI) and innovative drugs, which represent the future direction of industrial development, are also emerging as new calling cards for China's foreign trade.
However, the impressive performance provoked unease among some Western media outlets and politicians. Some have deliberately portrayed China's rapid industrial development and strong competitiveness as a result of government subsidies, pushing the false claim that subsidies have created overcapacity and those low-priced Chinese products are flooding global markets. Such fallacies, which simply equate industrial subsidies with overcapacity, are not only logically flawed but also factually groundless.
In practice, many countries adopt industrial policies tailored to their national conditions and development needs, such as providing research and development (R&D) subsidies for emerging industries and risk related subsidies for agriculture.
Well-designed industrial subsidies can help address market failures, promote technological innovation and environmental protection, reduce poverty and support balanced development, rather than cause so called "overcapacity."
Multiple reports by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development have noted that the number of industrial policies worldwide has grown rapidly over the past five years, with R&D subsidies, tax incentives and low interest loans for emerging industries becoming common international practices.
Forcibly linking industrial subsidies to "overcapacity" is, in essence, a political manipulation based on double standards. The US, for example, plans to provide $750 billion in various subsidies from 2022 to 2031 under its Inflation Reduction Act. Subsidized EVs are subject to requirements such as production and sales in the US or North America, effectively excluding other WTO members. US industrial subsidies for AI are even greater than those of all other countries combined.
Similarly, according to incomplete statistics, the European Commission is expected to provide more than 1.44 trillion euros ($210 billion) in various subsidies between 2021 and 2030. The EU's Industrial Accelerator Act links local content directly to financial support through "Made in EU" requirements, creating serious investment barriers and institutional discrimination.
Have these massive subsidies been labeled as causing "overcapacity"? The answer is no. While claiming that China's industrial subsidies lead to so-called overcapacity, these countries are themselves providing massive subsidies to their own industries. Such double standards amount to selective accusations targeting China, aimed at politicizing trade and economic issues and weaponizing industrial policy.
At a deeper level, accusations that "China's industrial subsidies cause overcapacity" are merely a pretext, reflecting growing anxiety and fear over the rising competitiveness of Chinese industries.
Looking back at the repeated hype in Western media, the criticism has consistently targeted China's most globally competitive industries, including new-energy vehicles, photovoltaics and power batteries. This exposes the real intention of shifting the blame for their own lagging industrial development onto China while stepping up restrictions against Chinese industries.
China's breakthroughs in these industries have been driven by advances in homegrown technologies, complete industrial and supply chains, and robust market competition, rather than by policy subsidies as some have claimed.
In recent years, China has taken multiple steps to regulate and improve its subsidy policies, from reviewing and correcting inappropriate local subsidies to exploring a unified negative list mechanism for local fiscal subsidies. China applies subsidies equally to all market entities, including foreign invested enterprises, strictly follows WTO rules, and continues to improve the compliance, effectiveness and transparency of its subsidy policies.
Rather than fabricating and hyping baseless claims about subsidies and obsessing over building trade barriers, certain Western media outlets and politicians should focus on addressing their own weaknesses and increasing investment in research and development. They should embrace healthy market competition with an inclusive mindset, promote mutual benefit through greater openness, and win markets and drive progress through genuine innovation.
This was compiled and translated by the Global Times English edition based on an article published in the "Chisu Jinsheng" economic commentary column of the People's Daily on August 10, 2026.
。 WOBURN, Mass. -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday proposed banning the cancer-causing chemical trichloroethylene, which can be found in consumer products including automobile brake cleaners, furniture care and arts and crafts spray coating. The move would end a nearly four decade battle to ban the chemical known as TCE, which can cause sudden death or kidney cancer if a person is exposed to high levels of it, and other neurological harm even at lower exposure over a long period.EPA’s recent risk-evaluation studies found that as much as 250 million pounds of TCE are still produced in the United States annually. One of the first places the chemical raised concern was in Massachusetts, where it was linked to contaminated drinking water in the city of Woburn. Two locations there were ultimately designated as massive Superfund sites. Monday's news conference was held at one of them, a location which now serves as a transportation center.“For far too long, TCE has left a toxic legacy in communities across America," said Michal Freedhoff, the EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Today, EPA is taking a major step to protect people from exposure to this cancer-causing chemical.” Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey, who has led the effort to ban TCE, welcomed the move. “With this rule, we can see a future where we will no longer be manufacturing, processing and distributing a chemical known to be deadly,” Markey said. “We will no longer be exposing American families, communities and workers to a toxic chemical legacy that leaves questions, cancer and catastrophe in its wake.”Markey called the effort personal, citing his long-time work with Anne Anderson, a resident-turned-activist whose son Jimmy died in 1981 of leukemia.“Since Anne and I met in 1980, we have been partners in the effort to clean up Woburn, to get justice for her son, and to save other families from seeing their children fall sick as a result of contamination,” Markey said. "Thanks to the advocacy of Anne Anderson and the action of the EPA, the era of corporations using communities like Woburn as dumping grounds for toxic TCE is over.” A 1982 lawsuit over the contaminated water supply involved eight Woburn families, including the Andersons. The case garnered national attention and led to the book and movie titled “A Civil Action.” The American Chemistry Council said in a statement that TCE has several important uses in packaging and in formulating products. The proposed rule “is inconsistent with the underlying science,” the council said, calling on the EPA to avoid unnecessarily restricting valuable industrial uses for the chemical. “EPA must base its risk management proposals on best available science, including accurate assessments of exposure," the industry group said. “Where uses of chemistries have decreased over time, this must be reflected in EPA’s underlying risk assessment, because decreased use reduces potential exposure.”Meanwhile, environmental groups praised the proposed rule, which would take effect in a year. “EPA followed the science, listened to impacted communities, and proposed one of the strongest chemical regulations in recent history,” Earthjustice Senior Attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz said in a statement. “Some chemicals are simply too harmful to remain on the market." TCE is used to make refrigerants and in solvents that remove grease from metal parts. It is also used in carpet cleaners, laundry spot removers and hoof polish for horses. The chemical presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” in 52 of 54 uses in industrial and consumer products, the EPA has found.“I am overwhelmed that all of you are here to acknowledge everything that has happened and everything that was bad has turned good,” Anderson said. “I owe so much to you people to keep the fight going, making sure that everybody is safe and that toxic chemicals like TCE will no longer exist.”The proposed ban stems from a major expansion of EPA's regulatory powers under a landmark 2016 law that overhauled rules governing tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, from household cleaners to clothing and furniture.The statute authorized new rules for tens of thousands of toxic chemicals found in everyday products, including substances such as asbestos and TCE, that for decades have been known to cause cancer but were largely unregulated under federal law. Known as the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the law was intended to clear up a hodgepodge of state rules governing chemicals and to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.The 2016 law required the EPA to evaluate chemicals and put in place protections against unreasonable risks. The agency moved to ban asbestos last year and has also proposed banning methylene chloride, perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride.__ Associated Press writer Matthew Daly in Washington contributed to this report.。
Current article:http://w7pe2mn.longdachemakuanshan.pics/news/20260826_74423.html
Published on:11:19:20
