Emission trading: Carbon Colonialism

What is emission trading and how does it work?  

Under the Kyoto Protocol 1992, many countries have agreed to reduce their emission of gases. It is a market-based approach to controlling pollution. By creating ‘trade-able’ pollution permits, it attempts to add the profit motive as an incentive for good performance. “Cap and trade” is the main form of emission trading. A cap is set on emissions and then permits are created upto the level of this cap. The countries and companies that are covered by the scheme need to hold one permit for every tonne of pollution they emit. The companies have many ways of reducing their pollution level such as investing in clean technologies. However, if they need more permit they can: a) trade permits from other countries/ companies if they have any leftovers. b) invest in “green projects” in developing countries which also counts.

What “green projects” (aka carbon-fixing projects) have been invested in, in developing countries?

1. “mono-culture tree plantation”: theoretically absorbs carbon from the atmosphere
2. Renewable energy projects: solar/ wind projects

https://youtu.be/A3vbLfrubUM

What are the effects of the above projects on developing countries?

Firstly, planting trees need a lot of land which means that many indigenous communities are affected. This has been evident in Uganda, where a Norwegian company seized land for such kind of project which resulted in the eviction of 8000 people in 13 villages.

Also, another project: “eucalyptus plantation” funded by the World Bank and run by a company called “Plantar” in Brazil. Eucalyptus is a kind of tree which is tall and thirsty and has aromatic evergreen leaves, that soaks up a lot of water, this results in water shortages for the local areas. This is particularly bad for farmers who grow food either for themselves or for the market. Many local communities have also been affected by the pollution caused by pesticides and herbicides used for the trees. This has also got negative impact on the environment. Such as contamination of water which kills fish and can cause health problems if drank. This exacerbates poverty even more, because the fishermen can no longer do their job.

Furthermore, the workers on such plantation have little or no health and safety protection and are exposed to hazardous chemicals and dust particles. For instance, Plantar, the plantation company has been prosecuted amongst other 50 companies for illegal outsourcing of labour with extreme degrees of exploitation.

The irony: It is widely known and accepted that carbon stored above-ground (trees) is not equivalent to the carbon stored below-ground (fossil fuels). Therefore, there is no scientific credibility for the practice of soaking up pollution using tree plantation, yet companies invests on such projects. For e.g: planting 1000 trees can soak up only 10% of CO2 from the atmosphere whilst burning 1 tonne of fossil fuel contributes to 20% of the CO2 pollution. — > replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is a lot more effective in reducing pollution than planting thousands of trees. But companies and governments still build on this illusion of taking action on climate change.

So how is this seen as ‘carbon colonialism’:

Whilst the developed countries are the biggest contributors of world’s pollution and also the biggest consumer of world’s resources, it is the developing countries that have to bear the burden of ‘soaking up CO2’. Instead of reducing it in rich countries, a carbon dump is created in the poor countries. Thus, rich countries can continue in their unequal over-consumption of the world’s resources.

Why is the climate change issue so unfair?

In her article, Haidi Bachram describes and criticises the solutions to slow down the environmental changes. Bachram provides the reader with a timeline where she describes the outcomes of various panels and organisations that claim to work against the climate change. For example, in 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the present CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now in the past 20 million years. This is a concerning statement. Additionally, Bachram points out that 80 million people across the world are at risk of their homes being devastated by the climate change.
The concern deepens when we realise that the industrialised countries are the ones to be blamed. In US and UK alone, where 10% of the world's population lives, 45% of total carbon dioxide emissions are produced. CO2 that is emitted by humans comes from burning fossil fuels and the IPPC is advising the governments that a minimal and immediate reduction of 50-70% of emissions is crucial to stabilise the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was signed as an agreement of 156 countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately for the agreement, the biggest polluter in the world - US has withdrawn. Another 'breakthrough' that also happened in 1997 was suggested by the US. 'Permits to pollute' was a system made to stabilise emissions. The idea was to set a legal amount of emissions that a factory could produce. If a factory did not use all permits, they could decide to sell them and, likewise, if they needed more they could buy from the firms that did not need to pollute as much. At first, this seems like a good idea but most (including The Dutch Institute RIVM) believe that it was just a tool to 'greenwash' people. Greenwashing is a term used to describe actions made by a government or a corporation that seem to be 'green' but they are actually just focused on increasing their capacities. Instead of a 5.2% of reductions from the 1990 levels agreed by Kyoto, trading will only reduce them by 0.1%.
Honestly, Kyoto seems very ambitious. Reducing the emissions by so much without actually drawing a plan does seem ridiculous. Maybe the 'permits to produce' are not that bad after all? Since the emissions are now considered as resources to allocate, no more than the combine legal levels can be produced, so surely it must be good for us?
The author believes that it is not that great of a solution after all. She points out that the system might be confusing as the pollutants are exchangeable. It might seem to be helpful for the environment but on the closer look, there is no visible improvement.
I believe that the biggest problem we are facing is the unfairness that goes with climate change. Taxpayers are often forced to pay for the governments doing nothing and 'carbon sinks' are poor countries that are being made to accept the dump that is pushed from over-consuming countries.
Concluding, government are made to choose the best solution but the 'best' one doesn't seem to exist. All human activity can be described as destructive and the fact that emission measurements can never be 100 percent accurate isn't helpful. Some of us, already accepted the fact that no improvement can be made, some are desperately going vegan to reduce the emissions of methane and the worst-off, the victims of the victims, have to suffer human-kinds mistakes by giving up their homes or getting lost in yet another storm that was caused by our trashed by carbon, unstable atmosphere.

The Market & Nature

The market and nature

Polanyi in the great transformation talks of the market and land and how the two came to intertwine. Man and nature are inseparable, man labours the land and is a form of stability for man, despite this Polanyi believes that the market destroys the traditional relationships between man and labour, and between man and land . The end to the feudal system meant that Britain privatised land for industrial purposes and cultivation, known as commercialisation of soil. Polanyi outlines how the labour laws were set up by lawyers, therefore were just, however the economy regulated land through land owners, and is therefore subject to the economy and free market. The privatisation of land created an unjust method of habituation for the rural and poorer classes and resulted in a rush for acts to keep them housed. Jeremy Bentham saw the mobilisation of land as a method of individual liberty, where as Polanyi recognised the domination and selfishness behind the system, trading/middle classes used the mobilisation of land as a means to depress the working class, their lack of education meant the few who could observe the fallacies of free market were few too many. This shows how the trading class stood for development rather than for the interest of the community, many anthropologists argue that it is in human nature to live in self interest and  is a precondition to survival, however Polanyi contradicts this demonstrating the social nature of man, his economy is submerged in his social relationships, taking importance in safeguarding aspects such as their social standing.

As land became scarce Britain began to colonise other countries in order to use their land for wealth, shattering many cultural systems, and affecting the poorest cultures. Growth meant that during the 18th century mobilisation of land went from national to international and created a global interdependence, as industrial agriculture spread to more agricultural countries, they were found to be affected the most because the colonisation of their land created a cycle of poverty, due to the fact they no longer own their land or produce. Polanyi saw the malice behind this, because international trade was often unchecked, in Europe the destruction  of rural land was becoming an issue, this meant that 'corn laws' were introduced in order to reduce the consequences of the free market, however the agricultural countries were still exploited, due to the disorganisation of many of their societies and a lack of political systems/status, there were no such policies to protect their land from the market. On top of this African men and women were taken from their land and also put on the free market.

An irony comes from post world war one, in which Polanyi explains how the 'peasants' or working class built back Europe and came to dominated the  market economy, as lower prices emerged to avoid misery. War had brought ruin to land and fear struck a panic that food and raw materials were scarce, so access to food was low. This was a transformation from the previous distaste the working class had for the free market, now seeing growth in a time of fear as having more importance than ecological consequences after a time of destruction. 

Lydia Fox

Are Climate Change Models too Inaccurate to be Useful in Policy-making?

This blog post covers the report written by Griffin Carpenter, commissioned under the New Economics Foundation. The report seeks to debunk those who deny the fact (there is 95% certainty according to the IPCC) that humans have been the main cause of global warming from 1960 to present.

According to the report, instead of outright denying global warming, those who have been trying to undermine it, have done it by claiming the whole thing is uncertain. A recent Oxford study found that 80% of articles covering the topic contain uncertainty. This figure seems to suggest that many journalists unintentionally seem to undermine the effort made by scientists in warning the people when they use words that suggest that climate change is still uncertain. Undermining also happens very intentionally when criticising the figures given by the foremost panel on climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draws from the work of thousands of scientists from over 120 countries and their forecasts are internationally accepted as the most comprehensive and authoritative climate predictions available. IPCC has a 95% estimated certainty that humans have been the main cause of global warming from 1950 to present. To put this into context, it higher than the certainty that vitamins are good for you.

One of the many ways, the climate change studies are undermined is by claiming that climate forecasts are entirely inaccurate.

The report first seeks to define accuracy and does so as; a forecast that is both unbiased (the repeatability of the result) and precise (closeness to the actual value). Carpenter admits that very few models fall into both the unbiased and precise category. This is because it is too complex. Therefore, precision can be secondary to understanding a general trend.

When comparing forecast with the actual figures from 1995 to 2013, climate data points are shown to be largely in line with the projections made in 1995. In fact, it is both unbiased (it followed the trend predicted) and precise (it was largely within the forecast range).

This shows that the media largely exaggerate and jumped on the few mistakes that have been made by IPCC. Another claim made is that the models are not to the correct standard of accuracy for policy-making. Governments decision makers constantly use the predictions of professional economists who use complex economic models. Carpenter now seeks to find out if climate change models are as reliable as economic and social indicators already in use. If they are, it follows that they will be at the standard required to be used in policy making.

When comparing IPCC models with commonly used long term government measures (the ONS population forecast, the forecast of the HM Treasury’s debt/GDP ratio, and the US Energy information Administration oil price forecast) showcases a lot of inaccuracies in the economic measures.

Governments around should be confident in using the data to make policy decisions so that we can take steps to improve the world around us.

The report is convincing and successfully debunks claims that climate forecasts are inaccurate or not accurate enough to be help in policy making.

Is Global Warming uncertain?

Is Global warming uncertain?

In this particular article it aims to end the double standard surrounding global warming and thus wants to change the way important decisions regarding the planet are made. It may seem ridiculous to some, but many people in the world actually believe that global warming is uncertain, this articles claims that skeptics and the media are fueling distrust in global warming but this is controversial as there is a 20 year track record with accuracy regarding climate change.

Uncertainty is the new denial

The model behavior article claims that “a recent Oxford study on media coverage of climate change found that 80% of articles covering the topic contain uncertainty”, which seems very high considering the evidence that supports climate change. It can be said that people only debunk global warming in order to undermine scientific research and evidence. The argument of the skeptics shows that action on climate change should be delayed because of the uncertainties about it. This just seems unreasonable and unjustifiable, because uncertainty seems like a poor excuse for the disbelief of global warming. Furthermore, the article claims that this uncertainty has a big emphasis and thus has a negative impact on the climate progress; consequently it slows down the environmental policy and corrodes public will to act, which is the opposite for what global warming needs- that being: help from all humans and countries to try prevent it for future generations. There have also been psychology research notes that say uncertainty is one of the most serious barriers to action on climate change, which can easily be changed through knowledge and education. These people that think climate change is uncertain claim that these forecasts are just inaccurate or flawed and they aim their hostility at the Intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Tackling the misconceptions

If the uncertainty of global warming increases in popularity then the more people will hear about this, and furthermore the less likely they are to support the drive to keep global warming at bay. Ultimately the belief of uncertainty is a clear issue for the environment. It has also been proven that climate change is certain as there have been over two decades of global climate change observation data that represent this. The article concludes that uncertainty is not a real reason for the resistance to action on climate change, which can generally be agreed with, due to the lack of evidence global warming has against it. 

Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Mark Blyth.

Austerity, a renowned term in the realms of political economy- is a term used to describe government initiatives to tackle existing crises such as government debt. Austerity can come in a form of cuts in public expenditure, tax increases or both and it is usually done in very tight economic conditions.  

Blyth's book; Austerity is a guide to understanding how the global economy has found itself in crisis and he offers the following definition to the term Austerity when he says it is “a form of voluntary deflation in which the economy adjusts through the reduction of wages, prices and public spending to restore competitiveness, which is best achieved by cutting the state’s budget, debts and deficits”. One of the world's largest economies, the UK has adapted a fiscal policy as a response to the great recession and in 2009 David Cameron declared that "the age of irresponsibility is giving way to the age of austerity" and by the 2010 Coalition government of the Conservative and Liberal democrats the first austere policies were in action which lead to less people being able to access the housing market, less people in employment, the rate of life expectancy in England nearly halved between 2010 and 2017, and more people were living off of food banks due to the George Osbourne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's who achieved his goals by goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure and tax increases amounting to £110 billion. 

In his book, Blyth presents three reasons as to why austerity is dangerous and that is because it impacts those on the lower income bracket more than anything else (40% of the US income distribution hasn’t had a wage increase since 1979), it ignores the notions that all countries cannot be austere at the same time and that it simply doesn't work. He structures the book into three sections, the second section of the book is an examination of previous historical attempts at using austerity as a way to restore economic growth through market competition. 

 In this section the author combines the austerity with liberal economic policy that is weary of state intervention in the economy seeing as it as useless. He combines the ideas from Locke and Smith to the Austrian School, Schumpeter and Friedman, Blythe demonstrates the persistence of austerity policies. The strongest element of this section is the ‘natural history’ of austerity in which the experiences of austerity in the US and UK in the 1920s and 1930s, and Denmark and Ireland in the 1980s, are considered in the context of the countries such Lithuania, Bulgaria, etc..   

The crises of austerity

Austerity , commonly defined as the difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure .This definition stands in confrontation with the Political Economist Mark Blythe who defines it as the nonsense way on how to pay for the massive increase in the public debt caused by the financial crisis.

Giving clear analysis on how the modern day world lives in an all-encompassing debt from credit cards, mortgages and government debt as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. Blythe makes the argument that austerity is really an unjust use of the working class for the repayment of the upper-class debt.

Can this really be the case found in today’s society? According to Blythe there is no doubt, and here is why:

The bottom 40% of the US income distribution hasn’t had a wage increase since 1979 so it can be understood as to why many people have been found in a place of debt. Blythe re-asserts the point that banks who took loans were really just trying to maximise their own profits over base survival which is why there is clear inequality in how the repayment is arranged.

Blythe paints the picture of the private sector that is focused on reducing and paying off their debt, ultimately decreasing spending .This causes for the Government intervention , which has so far showed itself through increasing public consumption over private consumption by  either increasing taxation or ridding of the government services.

This brings us to the point that Blythe is emphasising in his book which is that the results of government intervention in cutting of services is felt very differently on the scale of income distribution because, the bottom 40% are the ones most in need of government services such as the police, healthcare and education so really, they are experiencing the effects of the crises more dramatically than the top percent who have caused the colossal magnitude of the crisis in the first place.

Is this relevant ?

In 2014 it was found that 71 coalition MP’s who voted for NHS privatisation had financial link from companies trying to profit from this deal.Moreover a recent survey by the public services found out of nearly  11,000 employees, including paramedics, teaching assistants, hospital porters and police staff of which (43%) described their standard of living as worse than a year ago, and a quarter (26%) said they owed more money than they did 12 months ago whilst In the US, the richest 400 Americans own more assets than the bottom 150 million.