frogblog

It struck me that the two high profile international summits of the last few weeks ended in much the same way. Both the climate change talks in Montreal and the trade talks in Hong Kong ended with committments to keep talking and not a lot else. Not surprisingly, whether you thought this was a good thing depended on your view of the value of the exercies in question.

I was amongst those who happily declared the Montreal outcome as progress of sorts.

But then at her post-Cabinet press conference yesterday, the PM said the Hong Kong talks were probably being described as a success because everyone’s expectation were so low at the outset. I suspect my optimism over Montreal falls into the same category.

I mention all this because of the relationship between trade and carbon emissions. The BBC reports:

Researchers found that US imports of goods from China cause a greater production of carbon dioxide than if the goods were made in the US.

Factories in developing countries tend to use more energy than in the west.

The researchers say emissions control measures such as the Kyoto Protocol could “export” carbon-intensive industries to the developing world.

This has long been a contention raised by critics of the Protocol.

Indeed they have, although that criticism presupposes a more *liberal* trade and investment regime that makes it easier for corporations to make countries compete in ‘a race to the bottom’. Conversely, I would argue that it is the WTO process undermining Kyoto that leads to carbon emissions being “exported”.

The BBC piece also offers an interesting potential solution:

This issue of “carbon leakage” is matched in controversy potential by another related argument; that western countries own up to emissions produced within their shores, when in fact they should be responsible for all emissions connected with the goods and products which they consume

Now that’s an idea! Particularly when you consider that the status of the US as the largest carbon emitter only takes into account its on-shore production:

“The US has the largest trade deficit of any country in world, so we suspected it might be responsible for a larger proportion of emissions than normally seen,” Dr Shui told the BBC news website.

Between the years 1997-2003, she found, the US “saved” 1,711 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by importing goods from China rather than making them within US borders.

That equates to a reduction of just over 3% in US emissions across the seven-year period, with the exact proportion rising year on year as the trade deficit increased.

But this reduction in US emissions was more than matched by an increase in Chinese emissions. In 1997, exports to the US accounted for seven percent of Chinese CO2 output; by 2003, the figure had risen to 14%.

Dr Shui calculates that global emissions were higher by around 720 million tonnes during the seven year period.

If anything, this analysis may underestimate the true picture as it excludes fuel used to transport goods half-way around the world.

Oh, yes, that will be the food miles argument applied across the board.

Nick Smith and other Nats argue that New Zealand is only responsible for a small percentage of global emissions and therefore should not be so near the front of the queue for addressing it. Thus the Nats are campaigning against the carbon tax.

The Greens and others have long countered that on a per capita basis Aotearoa pumps out the black stuff with the best of them. And clearly, if New Zealanders’ carbon emissions were measured on what we consume rather than what we produce we would look a lot less flash in both total and per head terms.

The rest of the BBC piece has the arguments for and against this analysis, have a read and let me know what you reckon. Should the measure of a country’s carbon emissions be based on the goods it produces, or those it consumes?

Bookmark to: