-
Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Yep this stuff is scary...
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Remember, Kilimanjaro is an active volcano... that might have something
to do with it.
But let me know when Mt. Ararat (or Mt. Judi) melts. (About 2400 feet shorter, 40 degrees higher latitude.) Then I'll go looking for the ark...
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Yep, it's a volcano, but it's been snow covered for a LONG time...even with active volcanic heat.
This is just one more example of the "climates they are a-changin'" - even if we can't prove it is caused by human activity. What we do know is:
1. The changes have accelerated as our activity has grown
2. Our outputs of heat and pollution are substantially more than the earth saw before, and our work has reduced the earth's natural ability (less open space, wetlands, and green) to cleanse itself.
3. We need to build, develop and grow- but we should find a way to do that in the most balanced way possible- after all, we're the smartest species aren't we? Smart enough to help moderate our own impact?
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by discretedancer
Yep, it's a volcano, but it's been snow covered for a LONG time...even with active volcanic heat.
This is just one more example of the "climates they are a-changin'" - even if we can't prove it is caused by human activity. What we do know is:
1. The changes have accelerated as our activity has grown
2. Our outputs of heat and pollution are substantially more than the earth saw before, and our work has reduced the earth's natural ability (less open space, wetlands, and green) to cleanse itself.
3. We need to build, develop and grow- but we should find a way to do that in the most balanced way possible- after all, we're the smartest species aren't we? Smart enough to help moderate our own impact?
Excellent post ! From what I've read Mt. Kilimanjaro has been covered with snow for the past 11,000 years. I say that whenever ANYTHING changes after that great amount of time, the causes have to be investigated.
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
While I should know better than to link to a site ran by a political think tank, this gives a somewhat different (yet still human related) explanation as to why the mountain has lost its snowcap.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14287
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
"According to Nature’s Betsy Mason, “Although it’s tempting to blame the (Kilimanjaro) ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.”
"
Could be right, though some would argue that since deforestation reduces our greenspaces, destroys wetlands and requires machines (pollution) it's part of the cause for global climate change.
To me (and I realize it's an oversimplification) deforestation, climate change, etc..all fall under the heading of "human impact." Often (as we see here) causes and results are interconnected....leading me back to the earlier statement.
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
I like the "let's not blame ourselves for this...let's instead blame pollution, deforestation, etc." Like there is a big difference. ;)
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Doc, you do realize that the site you linked to is a right wingy thingy, don't you? I don't know the bent of the think tank you refer to, but to "counter" it with a VERY obvious conservative site doesn't help your case.
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
As is the case in regard to other junk science based theories which have recently been questioned/debunked via hard scientific data, infrared satellite temperature readings don't lie !
"“The only problem with that knee-jerk explanation is that there has been no measurable atmospheric warming in the region of Kilimanjaro,” noted Daly. “Satellites have been measuring temperature since 1979 in the free troposphere between 1,000 and 8,000 meters altitude, and they show no tropospheric warming in that area. None.”"
This is of course the reason that the article's author had to use the phrase "stripped of its snowcap" , because the snowcap did not melt (contrary to politically motivated theories to the contrary).
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Hyde
Doc, you do realize that the site you linked to is a right wingy thingy, don't you? I don't know the bent of the think tank you refer to, but to "counter" it with a VERY obvious conservative site doesn't help your case.
I didn't counter anything. The think tank I was referring to is that very conservative site. I in fact made a disclaimer the link wasn't to the most objective of sources (of course for that matter, neither is CNN).
I don't think that "global warming" is neccesarily bunk, I just hate to hear agenda minded scientists scream it over and over as if it were indisputable fact, and that our greedy wasteful ways are indisputably to blame for it.
The earth has been around for billions of years. We've been keeping written climatological data for a few hundred at best. Could it be possible the snow disapearing of Kilomanjaro is just part of a long term (as in thousands of years) natural cycle? If not, then what caused the snowcap to dissapear last time? Last I checked, we didn't have automobiles, factories, and clear cutting loggers 11,000 years ago.
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc-catfish
Could it be possible the snow disapearing of Kilomanjaro is just part of a long term (as in thousands of years) natural cycle? If not, then what caused the snowcap to dissapear last time?
Could it be possible that all the climate change is a natural occurance? Maybe...we don't (as you say) have the evidence either way. Do we know our work on this planet has had some major impacts, which weren't (as far as we know) seen before on the earth? Sure...as far as we can tell (maybe they were, maybe there was a civilization this destructive and advanced 11,000 years ago...but I doubt it).
What we do know is:
Pollution, deforestation, and habitat destruction were not what the planet was built for. The systems which many point to as perhaps naturally causing these "global climate shifts" are being messed with severely by our actions. We have to realize that our actions cause REactions (consequences).
We're supposed to be intelligent species, so sticking our heads in the sand isn't the answer. If there's a chance (maybe even a good chance) that our activities are causing problems, isn't it up to us to examine the possibility and take all possible and appropriate action.
If this is natural causes, and the planet is going through a MAJOR, UNUSUAL but natural shift that's causing the ice caps to melt, an 11,000 year old snowcap to disappear, unusual levels of tsunami, hurricane and weather activity....isn't it in our best interest to do what we can to correct, or at least influence the trend? Wouldn't this include alternative energy and development solutions to restore or preserve remaining habitats which made the globe work so well for thousands of years?
Think climate change is fake? Why is one of the largest reinsurance companies spending BIG bucks on climate change issues and sustainability?
http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwsw...lu/RZIG-5C4L2L
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by discretedancer
Could it be possible that all the climate change is a natural occurance? Maybe...we don't (as you say) have the evidence either way.
Man - there is a lotta denial in the population these days.
Don't have the evidence? Man - WTF does it take? People cookin from cosmic rays?
Putting on that 250 SPF mumbling "Man, someone outta do something god damn it... and gas is so high for my SUK 2000."
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quite right. I should have said we don't have evidence this isn't a natural occurance (we're 90% sure, but not positive) but we DO have evidence our machines, technology and inappropriate development are having a global impact on habitats, climate and biosphere.
Seems like we should go with what we know and work to correct that - not ignore things based on an unknown "climate cycle" theory that may be true, partially true or bunk
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
I'm with you, green ! I'm all in favor of a little global warming moving the jet stream a bit so that California and western states get more rain (solves their water shortage), and New York and northeastern states will get less snow and more sunshine !
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
What are the impacts of the weather changes you 2 are suggesting? What kinds of habitats will be lost, what species destroyed and what long term effects will that have.
of course I'm ignoring the human economic destruction those changes will have (loss of snow based and desert industries) - those aren't so good either
Truth is, "we don't know with what we mess" when making changes like we have (deforestation, habitat removl, species killing, pollution) or like you suggest.....kind of like taking a commercial jet (by the way America throws away enough metal and glass every 3 weeks to rebuild the entire commercial airline fleet) andasking each passenger to remove one bolt. Who knows when a really important bolt will go or when the total quantity will just be too much?
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Truth is, "we don't know with what we mess" when making changes like we have (deforestation, habitat removl, species killing, pollution) or like you suggest....
well, the far extent of your argument is that a couple of hundred million humans ought to die in order to essentially stop deforestation, habitat removal, species killing, pollution etc. The entire subject is based on the premise that human life itself causes changes in the environment, and from there forward everything becomes an exercise in management. Where American policies are concerned, the ultimate extent of management extends to around 6% of humans and 10% of the earth, leaving the other 94% free to manage the other 90% in any way they choose.
BTW I heard on a radio program that the US forest service/EPA is forecasting that by the end of the decade the #1 contributor to obscured visibility (i.e. air pollution) in western national parks will be IMPORTED pollution i.e. air pollution originating in Mexico !
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
well, the far extent of your argument is that a couple of hundred million humans ought to die in order to essentially stop deforestation, habitat removal, species killing, pollution etc.
Couldn't be further from the truth - the argument is that humans ought to be responsible for the impacts of their actions, and ought to use their intelligence to mediate those impacts where possible. We have developed technologies to provide many services (transportation by car, electricity generation, etc) with much lower impact than "traditional" technologies. My only argument is we use that knowledge effectively. After all, what's at stake here is our own survival.
Quote:
The entire subject is based on the premise that human life itself causes changes in the environment, and from there forward everything becomes an exercise in management. .
Exac,tly. We need to manage our impact - as all species do. The fact is, while other species are impacted by their environment more than they impact it, we're in the reverse position. One of the few (only?) species to create outflows which are not usable as inputs to other species (and in many cases are poisonous to our species and theirs) it seems logical we manage our own affairs. What alternative are you offering? Keep going the way we are, reducing our ability (and that of other species) to survive on the planet and waiting for a resource war?
.
Quote:
Where American policies are concerned, the ultimate extent of management extends to around 6% of humans and 10% of the earth, leaving the other 94% free to manage the other 90% in any way they choose..
The issue is more than just American...but since you bring it up:
Americans are a small % of the world's population, but consume 25% of the raw materials of the world (check the great chart at http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_repor...gtheforest.asp)
Our economy leads the world, and is the major reason countries like China and India are developing so fast....meaning (at least partially) we are responsible for their increase in resource consumption
People are plundering the world's resources at a pace that outstrips the planet's capacity to sustain life, the environmental group WWF said Thursday.
In its regular Living Planet Report, the World Wide Fund for Nature said humans currently consume 20 percent more natural resources than the earth can produce
The impact of an average North American is double that of a European, but seven times that of the average Asian or African. (from http://www.fiscalstudy.com/2004-glob...-even-more.php)
Is there a good reason we SHOULDN"T MANAGE OUR RESOURCE USE AND POLLUTION? Is there a purpose to not utilizing the technologies at our disposal? If all you cna point to are fuzzy cost differences (which I have previously disputed) I contend that even if you're partially right the cost differences won't matter a lick when resources are so scarce they cause wars or when people cant remain healthy or find water/air for our own survival
Quote:
BTW I heard on a radio program that the US forest service/EPA is forecasting that by the end of the decade the #1 contributor to obscured visibility (i.e. air pollution) in western national parks will be IMPORTED pollution i.e. air pollution originating in Mexico !
Mexico, you mean where much of our "wal-mart economy" products are made? Or China, whose 8th largest trading partner is WalMart, and whose largest end-consumer of produced goods and services is the USA.
Again, I'm not saying this is strictly an American problem, but we do have a LARGE share (2:1 at least, compared with other developed nations) of the responsiblity, based on our large consumption. And, given the current (and some former) Administration's policy of involving/interfering/policing global activity, seems we've self-elected ourselves as world leader. Of course, current administration practices demonstrate we're a world leader in everything BUT proper management of our own economy and of the natural capital this world came with when we arrived.
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Mexico, you mean where much of our "wal-mart economy" products are made? Or China, whose 8th largest trading partner is WalMart, and whose largest end-consumer of produced goods and services is the USA.
Exactly. IMHO this means that by the end of the decade the EPA will effectively have shot all of it's bullets ... that it has succeeded via extremely strict emission regulations to bankrupt many former US pollution generating companies, and forcing the balance to either relocate or outsource to Mexico, China etc. As a consequence Mexican and Chinese facilities are generating probably 10 times as much pollution for the same amount of products produced, and some fraction of that is blowing or floating right back to the USA. Thus in the final analysis, the US has lost untold numbers of businesses and jobs, unemployment / welfare / medicaid payments are higher than ever (as well as the income taxes needed to pay for it), just as much pollution is finding its way into the US from foreign sources, and the EPA is powerless to do anything to reduce it.
I'm wondering what the environmental extremist crowd will be advocating 5 years from now .... invading Mexico to force their industries to enact pollution controls ?
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
As a consequence Mexican and Chinese facilities are generating probably 10 times as much pollution for the same amount of products produced, and some fraction of that is blowing or floating right back to the USA.
Where do you get these numbers? I can't even find them using your phrase as a google search term
Quote:
Thus in the final analysis, the US has lost untold numbers of businesses and jobs, unemployment / welfare / medicaid payments are higher than ever (as well as the income taxes needed to pay for it), just as much pollution is finding its way into the US from foreign sources, and the EPA is powerless to do anything to reduce it
1. your statement above said "some fraction" now "same amount" - HUH?
2. EPA may be poweless, but America isn't Simple statement can be made policy: If you use a factory to sell to products or services to US, it must meet current US environmental, health, and safety guidelines. Simple. End the debate, end 3rd world poverty and (s0me) hatred of America (who makes their children work 20 hours a day for 5c) and reduce pollution and worker deaths. Yes, it also ends $10 DVD players, but that's what you call a free and FAIR economy.
Quote:
I'm wondering what the environmental extremist crowd will be advocating 5 years from now .... invading Mexico to force their industries to enact pollution controls ?
I haven't seen many (if any) extremist comments here, have you?
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Where do you get these numbers? I can't even find them using your phrase as a google search term
It's a simple extrapolation. Pick any industrial process and figure how much pollution was generated per unit produced 50 years ago by US industries. This is essentially the amount of pollution still being generated today by factories in Mexico where actual environmental enforcement is a total joke. Then figure how much pollution was generated per unit produced under some rational, affordable pollution abatement measures i.e. those implemented by the EPA say 20 years ago, which was typically 10% of the unabated amount. Then figure the amount of pollution generated per unit produced by any remaining US factories operating under current EPA rules to be something like 1% of the unregulated amount. In short, the pollution being generated by a Mexican plant today can be on the order of 100 times as much as is allowed a US industry under current EPA rules (which is also why there aren't many such industries remaining, with the exception of those industries who have specifically been granted some slack by legislators i.e. coal fired power plants). Even if 99% of the Mexican pollution remains in Mexico, the remaining 1% which is blown north represents an equal amount of pollution to that which would have been generated if those industries were still located in the USA ! The extra 99% of course isn't America's problem, but it's definitely a problem for Mexican citizens. But in fact the US industries are gone, the jobs are gone, the pollution is still being 'delivered' to the USA, but now its actual origin is outside of EPA jurisdiction.
Quote:
If you use a factory to sell to products or services to US, it must meet current US environmental, health, and safety guidelines
No offense intended, but this is a total pipe dream. What you're describing is very similar to last winter's Flu Vaccine scenario. The guaranteed result is higher prices for everything, shortages, a 'black market', and ultimately gov't control of wages and prices in a 'captive' economy. Of course we could probably ask for help from Mikhael Gorbachev to manage such an economy, as he was the last world leader that had experience with such an economy.
Quote:
End the debate, end 3rd world poverty
Americans are already contributing to ending Mexican poverty ... by supplying their illegal immigrants in the USA with free educations, medical care, welfare checks, and illegal jobs so they can send 1/2 of the money back to Mexico.
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Pick any industrial process and figure how much pollution was generated per unit produced 50 years ago by US industries. This is essentially the amount of pollution still being generated today by factories in Mexico
Try as I might, I don't see any proof to backup this statement. Hard to believe that modern factories, with computerization and modern energy costs, would be AS ineffifcient as they were 50 years ago. Any links you can offer/?
Quote:
Then figure how much pollution was generated per unit produced under some rational, affordable pollution abatement measures i.e. those implemented by the EPA say 20 years ago,
so the technology from 20 years ago is good enough forever? Why is progress acceptable anywhere BUT in environmental rules
Quote:
which was typically 10% of the unabated amount.
Again, I can't find backup for this and don't agree. Link?
Quote:
Then figure the amount of pollution generated per unit produced by any remaining US factories operating under current EPA rules to be something like 1% of the unregulated amount.
Again, I can't find backup for this and don't agree. Link?
Quote:
In short, the pollution being generated by a Mexican plant today can be on the order of 100 times as much as is allowed a US industry under current EPA rules (which is also why there aren't many such industries remaining, with the exception of those industries who have specifically been granted some slack by legislators i.e. coal fired power plants).
Quote:
Even if 99% of the Mexican pollution remains in Mexico, the remaining 1% which is blown north represents an equal amount of pollution to that which would have been generated if those industries were still located in the USA !
Your numbers * your estimate * Your idea can equal any number. I'd argue:
Mexican factory is as polluting as comparable US facory 20 years ago (I say 2x today's output)
80% of mexican production comes to the US - without our demand their production would be 20%
(200% * 20%) (their capacity for pollution) = 40% (mexican pollution for mexicans as % of current US production emissions)
would be more accurate. Include the pollution in Mexico made for US markets, and their pollution ismaybe 200% ours. 2x, not 100x
Quote:
The extra 99% of course isn't America's problem,
I do argue that We need to accept some responsibility for pollution created for our needs...just as we do within the US, so must we in pockets of the world sponsored, protected and manage by US interests. LOGIC:
1. the world is climatalogically and meterogicaly a closed system-physically a sphere in fact
2. we're causing the pollution to happen. It wouldn't be there if not for us!
3. to not do so is another example of "american arrogance" which is why much of the world dislikes us - as illustrated in many videos made for the news by our post 9/11 enemies
Quote:
No offense intended, but this is a total pipe dream. What you're describing is very similar to last winter's Flu Vaccine scenario.
But do we not require importers follow other rules? Tariffs, Searches, Homeland Security? Why not add the requirement that sources of our materials must respect the tenets of our society? To quote the American Founding Fathers:
All men are created equal....Life, liberty...for all
We require imported products meet US safety and emission standards, FCC rules, UL listing, etc - those things protect the US consumer. But we can't do anything for overseas people or pollution that (by your statement) is a MAJOR factor in US pollution.
Not much differnt than what Nike and other import companies are doing...inspecting overseas factories and sources - in response to public opinion they and other companies are makingtheir overseas ops greener and safer. Why can't we as consumers or we as a people-centered government extend that?
Now, in the current Administration and climate I don't expect it will happen...but if people cared and took action through ASC it could
Quote:
he guaranteed result is higher prices for everything, shortages, a 'black market', and ultimately gov't control of wages and prices in a 'captive' economy.
WOW....all that if we decide proactively make moves to reduce imported pollution to the US? Amazing.
Quote:
Americans are already contributing to ending Mexican poverty ... by supplying their illegal immigrants in the USA with free educations, medical care, welfare checks, and illegal jobs so they can send 1/2 of the money back to Mexico.
Again, I don't have comparitive data here. But how is that magnanimous effort on our part (not that we aren't getting laborers at below US rates, putting Americans out of work) doing anything to reduce the imported pollution or other issues>
Imported Pollution. Poisonous Gas from Another Country. If nothing else, we can take proactive action to protect us from this assault from overseas. OH I FORGOT...can't protect US citizens if US companies might lose profit or WalMart prices might go up!
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Try as I might, I don't see any proof to backup this statement. Hard to believe that modern factories, with computerization and modern energy costs, would be AS ineffifcient as they were 50 years ago. Any links you can offer/?
I can offer you eyewitness proof in at least one example - a stone washed blue jeans company which relocated to Mexico. In the USA, recent clean air and clean water laws would have required that tens of thousands of gallons worth of detergent and dye filled water would have to be treated before discharge, and would require that tens of thousands of cubic feet of dryer exhaust be treated for the removal of lint. In the Mexican plant, they simply discharge the dryer stacks straight out the roof. For the stone wash water, they bulldozed an olympic swimming pool sized pit behind the factory, lined it with a plastic tarp, and pump the foaming blue wash water straight into the pit to evaporate (if it doesn't leak out first). If the pit fills up, they bulldose a new pit and unroll a new plastic tarp. I was in Mexico and for whatever reason wound up standing less than 500 feet from these pits !
Therefore, besides saving hugely on labor costs, taxes, benefit costs etc. the company that owns the plant saved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs for rinsewater treatment and stack filtration, plus save tens of thousands of dollars per year in the costs to operate said pollution control equipment. This has nothing to do with the ABILITY/TECHNOLOGY to reduce air and water pollution, it has to do with the INVESTMENT/COSTS of reducing air and water pollution or more specifically in avoiding those costs.
Quote:
so the technology from 20 years ago is good enough forever? Why is progress acceptable anywhere BUT in environmental rules
Again it has nothing to do with technology ... it has to do with cost/benefit ratios. If a 90% reduction in pollution costs say $100,000, but a 99% reduction in pollution costs say $1,000,000, and a 99.9% reduction in pollution costs $10,000,000 --- but the company can't make a profit if it is forced to spend more than $1,000,000 --- what has the EPA accomplished by requiring them to spend $10,000,000 or go out of business in the USA ? They got their last 1% of pollution reduction (versus the company being allowed to continue to operate at the 99% level and stay in business), but drove the company out of the country instead along with the jobs and tax revenues it formerly produced.
So the company moves to Mexico where it doesn't even have to invest the $100,000 to achieve a 90% reduction, and the same 1% of the unmitigated pollution levels produced in Mexico drift north across our border anyhow !
Quote:
Imported Pollution. Poisonous Gas from Another Country. If nothing else, we can take proactive action to protect us from this assault from overseas. OH I FORGOT...can't protect US citizens if US companies might lose profit or WalMart prices might go up!
It's no joke in El Paso, Texas for example. And what sort of protection measures can we take. If the US laws are changed to prevent US citizens from buying products made by polluting factories in Mexico or other countries, at this point in time, there are already many products that US citizens simply won't be able to buy anymore. You're overlooking the fact that taxes, environmental regs, benefit costs, OSHA regs etc have already driven a huge portion of US manufacturing out of the US. It's no longer a case of buying foreign imports versus buying American for many industries and products. For example, the next time your refrigerator quits, if you can't buy one made by a polluting company outside the US, you're not going to be able to buy one at all (or maybe you'll be able to stand in line for a limited number of units still produced in the USA at twice the current price). Same goes for most durable goods, virtually all consumer electronics, virtually all textiles, a huge chunk of prescription drugs especially flu vaccine ...
The only way that your proposal could actually be implemented is via draconian wage and price controls, accompanied by a major across the board decline in the US standard of living.
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
As a consequence Mexican and Chinese facilities are generating probably 10 times as much pollution for the same amount of products produced, and some fraction of that is blowing or floating right back to the USA.
With tragic consequences sometimes, I might add.
For example: http://www.fluoridealert.org/pollution/1299.html
-
Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years
Quote:
In Matamoros, Mexican environmental officials declined to comment. But the general manager of the Matamoros Economic Development Council said his nation is serious about improving its environmental enforcement. "There may have been some companies who said let's move down here to Matamoros because the laws aren't enforced, but that's changing now. We don't want the pollution here," said Luis Elicondo Martinez.
For Mexico, the maquilas are a source of almost $ 4 billion annually in hard currency, and, compared to other parts of the country, also provide jobs at relatively high wages. "It all depends on what you're looking at. These companies can go to Reynosa [a nearby Mexican city] and pay $ 6 a day instead of $ 12 here in Matamoros. Or they can go to China and pay 15 cents an hour," said Fred Quintana, executive director of the Matamoros Maquila Association.
that's about the size of it based on what I've seen personally.
Also, as I tried to indicate from earlier posts, despite the fact that pollution and public health conditions in Texas and other border cities are going from worse to terrible, there isn't a goddamn thing that the EPA or any other US agency can do about it at this point, other than write off the entire region at some future date as the next Love Canal. They can't even sue the companies responsible if the corporate hq has moved out of the USA as well !