Yes, I’m getting back to a little bit more on the serious issues again but please don’t be put off by the title.
A while back I intended to write a long article that never happened and this issue was going to play a part in it.
The primary inspiration for it was an article on the BBC’s website which I really can’t be bothered to hunt out now which reported that only Britain and Sweden in the EU were on target to meet the conditions of the Kyoto agreement as regards carbon-emissions.
Good news of course to us conscientious environmentally aware and active Brits that we’re leading the world on this issue. I remember too well the news back in the 80′s when Britain was branded the ‘dirty man’ of Europe with our factories belching out sulphur dioxide that was destroying the forests of Norway, Sweden and Finland. We’ve obviously come a very long way since then. Or have we?
Now we’ve had a bit of news the last few days that actually the UK’s carbon emissions rose last year but I’m not going to jump onto that issue to take an all too easy swipe at the Government. I’m more interested in longer term trends and patterns which, at least as far as your humble Penguin can surmise, have gone completely unnoticed.
Here’s where we get into a bit of economics. I want to introduce the concept of comparative competitive advantage. It’s a well established economic theory which basically means one country can produce some goods better or more efficiently than the other so if countries trade the goods they are both best at, the whole system is more efficient, productive etc etc etc.
The classical example of this is to consider two countries. Country A is somewhere say in the Caribbean, nice hot climate but not much in the way of industrial raw materials. Country B is somewhere in northern Europe, much colder climate but relatively rich in terms of mineral and energy resources. Country A can produce Bananas a lot better than country B because it’s got the right climate. However country A requires various agricultural equipment and tools that country B is better placed to manufacture. So they happily produce what they’re best at, trade the goods, everything is more efficiently done and everyone’s happy.
With that in mind I’d like to return to this Britain seeming to be doing quite well on the old Kyoto targets compared to everyone else except Sweden.
I know we’re doing a lot in the UK on this, we should be doing more but we are in terms of our environmental regulation on industry a lot better than most. However this did puzzle me as to why some of the other EU countries weren’t up there particularly those who have been seen to be more ‘green’ than us in the past.
This is where I would like to introduce a ‘new’ concept. Now I have been looking around quite a bit for relevant information and personally I can find no one anywhere who has touched on this issue and it is very important if we are serious about building a long-term sustainable world for the future of our species. As I can’t find anyone who has contemplated this issue then I’m going to claim it as my own although I’d be happy to defer to anyone who can find mention of it else where.
I’m going to call it ‘comparative false carbon off-setting’. Bit of a mouthful I know but bear with me.
This is the theory that by off-setting swathes of economic activity, individual countries can appear at least on the outset as being ‘greener’ than others. So here goes, a brief overview of the UK as an example.
Back in the 70′s, Britain had quite a large industrial base producing goods that were consumed by the British people in Britain. Along comes the Tories and a few million people on the dole later Britain now has a far smaller industrial base which has continued to shrink ever since.
Now have the British become ever more less the consumer. No, and from my own personal experience in comparing to other countries I think it is fair to say that the Brits are some of the most voracious consumers out there. We love all the latest things, clothes, consumer electricals, cars etc etc. So although our ability to produce the goods at home as it were has declined, our desire to purchase has not, and if anything it has increased considerably over the last 30 years.
This means we have to import the goods from elsewhere. We afford to do this by shifting our economic activity to the service sector and here’s where the problem is. However you want to look at it, our economy is built on a service sector that comparably produces less pollution/carbon-emissions than industrial production. Good for us in terms of needing less specific energy for manufacturing, processing raw materials and so yes, when taken from that perspective the UK is doing quite nicely in terms of cutting carbon emissions.
The problem arises from us still wanting the manufactured goods which as they are no longer produced at home come from other countries. Countries that do not have as good environmental standards as ourselves. I’m going to single out China as an example of a country that over the past few years has become a major exporter of goods to the UK. Nothing personal against the Chinese but they have come in for some stick on their environmental record, the rapid growth of manufacturing and their willingness to use high carbon emitting energy sources such as coal to fuel their economy.
Here’s where I find that us Brits put ourselves in a position of being a bit on the hypocritical side because we are happy to blame countries such as China for not doing enough to curb their carbon emissions but that very rise in emissions is of a direct response to the demand for goods by our good selves that the Chinese produce.
We have, through poor economic policy started in the 1980′s left ourselves with the inability to feed those demands at home and thus require not only that the material goods we consumer be manufactured in a way that produces more carbon emissions than it would in our more highly regulated economy, but equally then have to be shipped from the other side of the world incurring yet more carbon emissions.
While countries like France and Germany who aren’t on target to meet their Kyoto targets but still retain large manufacturing bases to supply local demand of their consumers. We have in effect off-set the pollution/carbon-emissions of the manufacturing process required to meet many of our own consumer demands which creates a false image of the relative ‘greeness’ of the economies of different countries.
If we were to try and address this issue by compiling carbon footprints based not just on the economic activity within one economy but by analysing the carbon emissions generated by what is actually consumed then I fear that the UK may not come out in quite so rosy a light as it has done.
Anyway, there’s a thought to consider.
Hi penguin, interesting article and some good points.
If i may.
NGOs have been saying for some time that UK are not on target to meet kyoto. And actually UK emissions have not decreased since 1990. Trade in manufacturing goods with China has increased since then, so it may not be a case of false offsetting. It is a good point however and needs to be considered.
Many may suggest a system of genuine carbon offsetting would be the answer, for example China (to make our goods) buys credits off the less polluting UK and then in turn adds the price on to our goods.
Most env NGOs do not agree with Carbon offsetting as it doesn’t deal with the need to reduce consumption and move away from carbon based societies.
However some sort of global carbon tax is needed. CC for all its problems is at least making us think globally about our impact on the env.
Ps Happy to give you my references, if you so wish.
Pleased to meet another Penguin. If you could drop me said references that would be interesting to have a look at.
I will get back to you with a more lengthy response but I’m doing a major bit of coding at the moment.
Cheers.
Hi Penguin, have tried twice to leave you my references, but they’re not posting.
Sorry, any other ideas on how i can get them to you?
Yeah, sorry about that. I have got them. If anyone puts more than one link into a post it is held for approval as spam often contains large amounts of links.
Will have a look when I get a mo, busy busy day.
Penguin Island.
Sorry once again for a delay in responding. Been busy doing some important things and equally not very important things of late.
Some interesting stuff there. I think that the real issue comes down to our over dependence on the consumer lifestyle. I’ll admit I’m not a signed up contributor to it myself. I hate shopping, never browse for things, if I need it I go out to get it and come home. I don’t buy new things if the old one isn’t broken or crave the latest gadget.
I agree a system whereby the true carbon cost of production/shipping should be introduced but the actual logistics of implementing such a system are exceedingly complex.
I am myself personally torn between what is the best approach. The natural extension of the argument to reduce carbon emissions is to produce more things locally but I am mindful of the geo-political ramifications of that.
The whole founding basis of peace in Western Europe has been to tie economies through trade so closely together that conflict is not desirable for any one country because we are all interdependent on each other. Trade and interdependence does promote peace a lot more than individual self-sufficient nations does. Equally this is true on a larger scale when we are considering trading blocks or countries of immense size such as China or India. So global trade is to be encouraged from a purely security perspective, but yet doesn’t do any good to the planet we live on.
I hope that didn’t sound too rambling, it’s late, I’m tired but I was mindful that I hadn’t responded to you and didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you.
It does look like you have been working late PP.
Last night’s Newsnight had an interesting piece on the environment and the (hilarious) death of the Ethical Man. They also had a guy on, who was from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement – over the top but credit due for opening the issue up for discussion
While i agree that trade is an important binder of countries (look at the recent sino-japanese discussions) it’s also historically an important cause of war (oil) and misery (sugar and slaves) and profits at the expense of the poor ( ie Africa sells raw materials to Europe, Europe sells manufactured goods back to Africa).
Thanks for the postback, Penguin Island