Skip to main content

Who pays for the damage of 'free' global markets?

Some of my recent blogs have been about markets. This is no exception. The point I make is that the neoliberal view of 'free markets' meeting needs is a myth.  Markets are neither 'free' and nor do they meet social needs or environmental health - the neoliberal view has no need for  'social need'. It speculates on the future without heeding the consequence. It simply considers social need as aggregate individual need.

But as I pointed out in my previous articles, social need is more than the sum of aggregate individual need, and the problem with the 'free' market is that it has no 'social conscience' - there is no market measure or price for social need.  The neoliberal wants a 'reduced State' which means substantially reduced public spending.  Many are appalled at poverty levels increasing, yet there is no market for 'ending poverty'.  Growth without social provision won't meet social need. But let's take another example - the environment.

There is an urgent need to end and reverse deforestation - I know it, you know it - but in what market can we effectively express that demand? Certainly not though price of goods, because as demand for goods increases, so does deforestation.  Did you really want that when you bought your last packet of corn flakes?

As the human population continues to grow, so does the need for more food. Rising demand has created incentives to convert forests to farm and pasture land to grow food and for biofuels.

Once a forest is lost to agriculture, it is usually gone forever—along with many of the plants and animals that once lived there. It is the major threat to bio-diversity.  Did you want that the last time you bought a bar of chocolate?




It is estimated that 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation. Yet, some 46-58 thousand square miles of forest are lost each year—equivalent to 36 football fields every minute. 17% of the Amazon rain forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching. Did you want that when you bought a can of corned beef? Deforestation is happening as I write this piece, and it will continue while you read it.



Here in the UK 85% of domestic demand for wood products is met from imports, amounting to a value of around £6 billion annually.  Sweden, Latvia, Finland, Russia and Estonia together account for nearly 90% of all UK sawn softwood imports.  We need to build more housing and this will require more wood unless other materials are used. We know that whatever we do there is an environmental impact both locally and globally.  In terms of our environmental impact we are not an island. Our choices have impact on others across the globe and on future generations. Big global corporations trade with little accountability for their impact on local environments or the social consequences of their actions. 

The cost of pollution is real, but it is rarely factored into ‘production costs’. The cost of polluting now is met by future generations or by the public in clearing up the mess, or adjusting to the consequences of climate change. Those who produce greenhouse gas emissions are therefore imposing potentially huge costs on other people over time, yet our tax system doesn't reflect this.

There are essentially two ways in which ‘carbon pollution’ can be factored into costs: straight carbon tax or creating what is now called a carbon price.  But there are social costs too, such as impact on communities that are difficult to reflect in price.  They require action from government and regulation to prevent. 

The Committee on Climate Change estimates that a carbon price of £30 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2020 and £70 in 2030 would be required to meet the goal of reducing emissions by 80% in 2050. Currently, many large UK companies pay a price for the carbon they emit through the EU's emissions trading scheme. However, the price of carbon through the scheme is considered by many economists to be too low to meet  targets. 

The EU emissions trading system  is a cornerstone of the European Union's policy to combat climate change and its key tool for reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions 'cost-effectively'. The first - and still by far the biggest - international system for trading greenhouse gas emission allowances, the EU ETS covers more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in 31 countries, as well as airlines.

It is estimated that by 2020, emissions from sectors covered by the EU ETS will be 21% lower than in 2005. By 2030, the Commission proposes, they would be 43% lower.  In October 2013 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Assembly agreed to develop a global market-based mechanism to address international aviation emissions by 2016, and to apply it by 2020. But many environmentalists believe this is insufficient to have impact on the growing environmental challenge.

Effectively producers are buying their pollution at too low a price and with little incentive for increased efficiency to reduce it. 

In the UK the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Summer Budget this year that the Climate Change Levy is being extended to apply to renewable power, effectively turning it into an energy levy. This suggests a major shift to an attempt at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by simply trying to decrease energy demand by raising taxes on consumption,  and without further policies to encourage a shift to low-carbon production.  The cost will be payed by the consumer with no incentive for the energy producer to produce cleaner fuel. 

Meanwhile, the carbon price for emissions in the UK is likely to remain below that compatible with the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. 

The price of fossil fuels does not reflect their true costs, including the 'externalities' they create because greenhouse gases and other air pollutants damage health  through climate change, increased risk of heart disease, asthma and other diseases resulting from such pollution.  The price of food doesn't reflect the  true costs  of damage to the environment such as deforestation and its impact on global warming and bio-diversity. The biggest lobbyists against regulation are big businesses. Meanwhile, stock markets speculate on future price whilst failing to consider future consequences.  We are not paying the true price, but future generations will.

Human beings are a social species. We have the ability to create our environment just as we have the ability to destroy it.  We are a unique species in that we have an extended cultural history and can consider the consequences of our actions into the future.  We have choices we can only make effectively as a community, as a society, as an economy. It needs political will, not simply 'free' markets.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they