Skip to main content

Exporting carbon emissions

The UK, we are told, leads the world in tackling climate change. Since 1990 the UK has  cut emissions by more than 40 per cent while growing the economy by more than two-thirds. Unfortunately, this hides a bleaker reality.

British Prime Minister, Theresa May boasts that the UK has "the best performance on a per person basis than any other G7 nation."  She may be right, but... Yes, there is a 'but', and it is a very a big 'but'.  The UK hits its targets by exporting its pollution.

Exporting environmental pollution

The UK reliance on imports is simply exporting our environmental pollution. Our cheap food comes at a great environmental cost.   Our consumption goes on killing the planet.

Photo by Elle Dunn

In a globalised world, the demand for food is increasingly met by resources outside a given country’s own territory.  Currently, almost a quarter of all food produced for human consumption is traded internationally.  This is good news for the global food market and the big conglomerates that control it.  Vast profits are made, yet the producers, the growers, the workers in the fields, live in relative and absolute poverty.  Cheap food comes at a cost.

An analysis published two years ago demonstrated the extent of this for the United Kingdom. The authors conclude that 

The UK is increasingly reliant on international trade to satisfy its food and feed demand which is accompanied by a shift in the environmental impact beyond its own territory.

UK importing 50% of its food

The UK is currently importing over 50% of its food and feed, whereas 70% and 64% of the associated cropland and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGE) impacts are located abroad.  Thus,  UK food imports are contributing substantially to carbon emissions. 

Internationally, it is calculated that 20% of the global cropland area is currently used for exports. This will grow to meet the food demands of a growing population. 

A big quesion is whether exporting pollution is necessary to meet our food needs.  Climate matters in growing food.  That much is true, which is why most bananas come from countries like Ecuador. 

UK could grow more of its own food

It is estimated that the UK could grow a substantial amount of its own food, but this will require fundamental changes in what we eat and in our food habits.  

But the problem is broader than the UK.  The European Union is a net importer of agricultural products,  and it is also displacing the  environmental impact of feeding its population to other world regions.  This is despite the fact that European yields are among the highest in the world.  

We need a new world trade deal 

The world is in the grip of a new trade war, with reciprocal tariffs.  President Trump has thrown a big spanner in the wheels of the global trade machine.   Now is the time to reconsider the way the world meets its ever increasing demand for food. 

It is time we stopped simply exporting pollution and found trade that heals the planet rather than destroys it.  We need to live in harmony with the planet.  We cannot simply take what we need without thought for the consequences.  

Change will be difficult. It will take a great deal of political courage and cooperation.  Our lives will have to change.  But unless we do change, we will not meet global warming targets, and the consequences for future generations will be costly.



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

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

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