Skip to main content

Bad trade kills the planet.

Whether we leave the European Union or whether we stay, the United Kingdom must put environmental protection and climate change at the top of our agenda.  We must break the link between economic growth and habitat destruction.

This is a major political challenge because it requires us all to change our expectations about how we live in the future, and it requires the government to make bold decisions, where currently lip-service is paid.   It means breaking the neoliberal mythology of free markets and growth.  We need a new economic and social narrative.

Brexit is not a solution; nor is it a start.  It takes us in the wrong direction - the direction of seeking trade deals at any cost, an not least with the United States.

One problem with the financial crisis of 2008/9 is that it focused attention on the banking system as if it could be separated from global economics.  It fostered the notion that all that was needed was to reform the banks and all would be well.

The underlying assumption was and is that global economics didn't and doesn't need fixing.  Everything works well but for the financial system.  Let's all keep calm and carry on.

Yet, the focus on a corrupt banking system hides an underlying economic malaise,  The economy depended on banks lending, and growth was predicated on debt, debt and more debt.  This was not merely a problem of the banking system.  It was and remains a problem arising from the mythology of economic growth.

Politicians have long fostered the mythology of growth.  Growth became a  mantra.  Growth is good.  Good is growth.  Let's grow! Growth is presented as a miraculous cure.

Let's call this the first neoliberal myth.  The second neoliberal myth is that 'free', or unfettered global markets are inherently good.

It all sounds plausible. After all, without growth, there would not be more jobs, and without more jobs, there would be unemployment and increased poverty.  With growth, we can improve the tax revenue that feeds our public services.  Growth lies at the heart of all success.

Growth.  So much so that we didn't bother to ask what kind of growth it was, and whether some types of growth are wrong, and how we could achieve good growth.  Instead, we went after any sort of growth.

If industries collapse, what does it matter as long as there is growth?  Growth is good.  Good is growth! Let's keep growing.

So all political parties go for growth.  Growth becomes a mantra or a 'fix all'.  Growth becomes not the means to objectives, but the target, the goal itself.  Some get very rich on growth.  Yet, growth involves the exploitation of the world's resources and of its people, and how we grow matters.

We need to ask whether economic growth is sustainable, and on what it is predicated.  We need to ask who are the beneficiaries and who are the losers.  We need to consider its consequences on the environment, on habitats, on life on earth.  We need to ask what it does to our planet.

The most significant driver for man-made climate change has been growth.  Increasing the output of manufactured goods and increased food supply to feed our rapidly growing population.   Cheap food comes with a cost.   The system doesn't work if it kills the planet.  Losing species matters.

GDP growth is directly correlated with greenhouse gas emissions.

We need to decouple growth from emissions.  This is easier said than done.  It requires political courage and a fairer approach to trade and growth.

Our dependency on global trade is also a significant factor in the impact of pollution on the planet and on people's lives. People die as a direct result of global trade.  Global trade causes an estimated 20% of premature air pollution deaths.   Growth kills. Millions of people die every year from diseases related to exposure to outdoor air pollution.   That is not good growth.   This is bad growth.

As the recent paper in Nature says:

"International trade allows production and consumption activities to be physically separated, with emissions occurring within the region where the goods are produced and related health impacts concentrated within that producing region and nearby downwind regions, all of which might be far from the regions where those goods are ultimately consumed."

So we can go on burying our heads in the sand.  Our politicians seek to maintain the status quo.  They fight to save or make dodgy trade deals.  The very trade arrangements that have brought about this sorry state of affairs.

This is why we need a new global deal on trade.  One that puts environmental protection at the top of the list of objectives.

Author: Ray Noble

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As