Monthly Archives: June 2015

End transnationals’ $212 billion tax dodge on poorest countries





When rich countries tasked the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with tackling multinational tax dodging two years ago, campaigners had mixed feelings.

We agreed that the plan was a significant step forward, in terms of acknowledging the multi-billion tax crisis and being reasonably ambitious about tackling it. But we were equally agreed that the OECD’s proposed actions would only ever be a partial solution, especially from the poorest countries’ perspective.

New estimates, from International Monetary Fund researchers, suggest that developing countries lose up to $212 billion a year to multinational tax avoidance alone. The IMF researchers also reckon that corporate tax avoidance is a far worse problem for poor countries than for rich countries, relative to the size of their economies.

That’s a sum that could transform the lives of untold numbers of people living in poverty. A recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet demonstrates that when governments in poor countries increase their income from tax it leads directly to greater spending on vital healthcare.

Back in the room of tax campaigners, it was also clear to us that the OECD plan to catch up with multinationals would only tackle some of the symptoms, not the causes of global tax avoidance. Furthermore, we knew the reform process would be influenced by powerful vested interests, including accountancy giants and other multinationals with huge stakes in the status quo.

An alternative look at multinational tax dodging

We – a group of people representing organisations from across the globe- decided to initiate a second investigation of the same problem, but from a different perspective. We agreed to bring together a group of senior figures with a range of experience and expertise from across the globe, and especially from developing countries.

This became the Independent Commission on the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and we asked the commissioners to consider reforms of the global tax system, from the perspective of the global public interest rather than national advantage.

The Commissioners’ brief was to ask the simple questions that get to the heart of how the system ‘works’ and to suggest fair, effective and sustainable changes to help solve the core problems.

This week the Commission launched its landmark report at an economics event in Trento, Italy, just ahead of the G7 summit in Bavaria. The document, while only 11 pages long, delivers a devastating critique of the tax system and demands sweeping changes to the existing international rules and governing institutions.

“Tax abuse by multinational corporations increases the tax burden on other taxpayers, violates the corporations’ civic obligations, robs developed and developing countries of critical resources to fight poverty and fund public services, exacerbates income inequality, and increases developing country reliance on foreign assistance”, it argues.

“Every individual and country is affected by corporate tax abuse, and therefore the debate over multinational corporate tax avoidance should be widened and made more accessible to the public.”

End the ‘separate entity’ fiction that multinationals use to dodge tax

The Commission’s central demand is for an end to the legal fiction of treating companies which operate in different countries as part of the same multinational as though they were completely independent from each other (the ‘separate entity principle’).

The problem with this is that it enables companies within a multinational group to contrive to do business with each other in ways that shift their profits to ‘tax haven’ countries with low or zero tax rates – and their losses to countries with normal tax rates. Thus they ensure their global tax bill is far lower than it would be, were they were paying their fair share of tax in every country in which they do business.

In the words of the new report: “Multinational corporations act – and therefore should likewise be taxed – as single firms doing business across international borders. The commissioners see this as essential because multinational corporations often structure transfer pricing and other financial arrangements to allocate profits to shell operations in low tax jurisdictions.”

Despite the painfully evident problems caused by the fiction that multinationals’ subsidiaries are independent of each another, it remains an undisputed assumption at the heart of the global tax system and acts as a block to any truly effective reform.

The OECD meanwhile is already starting to claim that its tax reform project is working. But as a number of reports and analyses are showing, its work so far will have a limited impact in richer countries and simply not deal with the fundamental problem for poor countries.

As an organization often described as a ‘rich countries club’ it is hardly surprising that the OECD has not prioritized the problems faced by the poorest countries. Now we are calling on the G7 to show global leadership and ensure timely and effective action.

In addition to dropping the fiction of the separate entity principle, the Commission recommends curbing tax competition between countries to prevent the race to the bottom, as well as increasing transparency in the financial system and establishing an intergovernmental tax body within the United Nations.

These ideas will be seen by many as radical. Such changes will not be easy to implement and will not happen overnight. But as many people know, acknowledging the reality and severity of a problem can be the first step to recovery.

 


 

Toby Quantrill is Principal Advisor on Economic Justice at Christian Aid. Toby has worked in international development for more than twenty years, on issues including the environment, health, disability and trade, with organizations including WWF-UK, VSO, the Fairtrade Foundation and Action AId. At Christian Aid, Toby leads the organisation’s work on tax justice and also looks more widely at the economic system and its impact on poverty and inequality.

 






End transnationals’ $212 billion tax dodge on poorest countries





When rich countries tasked the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with tackling multinational tax dodging two years ago, campaigners had mixed feelings.

We agreed that the plan was a significant step forward, in terms of acknowledging the multi-billion tax crisis and being reasonably ambitious about tackling it. But we were equally agreed that the OECD’s proposed actions would only ever be a partial solution, especially from the poorest countries’ perspective.

New estimates, from International Monetary Fund researchers, suggest that developing countries lose up to $212 billion a year to multinational tax avoidance alone. The IMF researchers also reckon that corporate tax avoidance is a far worse problem for poor countries than for rich countries, relative to the size of their economies.

That’s a sum that could transform the lives of untold numbers of people living in poverty. A recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet demonstrates that when governments in poor countries increase their income from tax it leads directly to greater spending on vital healthcare.

Back in the room of tax campaigners, it was also clear to us that the OECD plan to catch up with multinationals would only tackle some of the symptoms, not the causes of global tax avoidance. Furthermore, we knew the reform process would be influenced by powerful vested interests, including accountancy giants and other multinationals with huge stakes in the status quo.

An alternative look at multinational tax dodging

We – a group of people representing organisations from across the globe- decided to initiate a second investigation of the same problem, but from a different perspective. We agreed to bring together a group of senior figures with a range of experience and expertise from across the globe, and especially from developing countries.

This became the Independent Commission on the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and we asked the commissioners to consider reforms of the global tax system, from the perspective of the global public interest rather than national advantage.

The Commissioners’ brief was to ask the simple questions that get to the heart of how the system ‘works’ and to suggest fair, effective and sustainable changes to help solve the core problems.

This week the Commission launched its landmark report at an economics event in Trento, Italy, just ahead of the G7 summit in Bavaria. The document, while only 11 pages long, delivers a devastating critique of the tax system and demands sweeping changes to the existing international rules and governing institutions.

“Tax abuse by multinational corporations increases the tax burden on other taxpayers, violates the corporations’ civic obligations, robs developed and developing countries of critical resources to fight poverty and fund public services, exacerbates income inequality, and increases developing country reliance on foreign assistance”, it argues.

“Every individual and country is affected by corporate tax abuse, and therefore the debate over multinational corporate tax avoidance should be widened and made more accessible to the public.”

End the ‘separate entity’ fiction that multinationals use to dodge tax

The Commission’s central demand is for an end to the legal fiction of treating companies which operate in different countries as part of the same multinational as though they were completely independent from each other (the ‘separate entity principle’).

The problem with this is that it enables companies within a multinational group to contrive to do business with each other in ways that shift their profits to ‘tax haven’ countries with low or zero tax rates – and their losses to countries with normal tax rates. Thus they ensure their global tax bill is far lower than it would be, were they were paying their fair share of tax in every country in which they do business.

In the words of the new report: “Multinational corporations act – and therefore should likewise be taxed – as single firms doing business across international borders. The commissioners see this as essential because multinational corporations often structure transfer pricing and other financial arrangements to allocate profits to shell operations in low tax jurisdictions.”

Despite the painfully evident problems caused by the fiction that multinationals’ subsidiaries are independent of each another, it remains an undisputed assumption at the heart of the global tax system and acts as a block to any truly effective reform.

The OECD meanwhile is already starting to claim that its tax reform project is working. But as a number of reports and analyses are showing, its work so far will have a limited impact in richer countries and simply not deal with the fundamental problem for poor countries.

As an organization often described as a ‘rich countries club’ it is hardly surprising that the OECD has not prioritized the problems faced by the poorest countries. Now we are calling on the G7 to show global leadership and ensure timely and effective action.

In addition to dropping the fiction of the separate entity principle, the Commission recommends curbing tax competition between countries to prevent the race to the bottom, as well as increasing transparency in the financial system and establishing an intergovernmental tax body within the United Nations.

These ideas will be seen by many as radical. Such changes will not be easy to implement and will not happen overnight. But as many people know, acknowledging the reality and severity of a problem can be the first step to recovery.

 


 

Toby Quantrill is Principal Advisor on Economic Justice at Christian Aid. Toby has worked in international development for more than twenty years, on issues including the environment, health, disability and trade, with organizations including WWF-UK, VSO, the Fairtrade Foundation and Action AId. At Christian Aid, Toby leads the organisation’s work on tax justice and also looks more widely at the economic system and its impact on poverty and inequality.

 






Tanzania in denial over 60% elephant population crash





Finally admitting this week that it has presided over a catastrophic 60% collapse in its elephant population due to poaching in the past five years, the Government of Tanzania is still flailing around in denial.

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has been investigating ivory trafficking out of Tanzania since the current upsurge in elephant poaching began in 2006.

In November 2014 it released its landmark Vanishing Point report, which revealed that Chinese-led criminal gangs are conspiring with corrupt Tanzanian officials to traffic huge amounts of ivory – and that the corruption extends into the Chinese Presidency.

In an apparent bid to shirk official responsibility, the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism, Lazaro Nyalandu, has partially blamed the 60% elephant population decline on “migration” to neighboring countries.

A deliberate suppression of the disastrous figures

The reality is that since January the Government has deliberately suppressed the elephant census figures, which show a fall in numbers from 110,000 in 2009 to 43,521 last year.

Despite the census being conducted between May and November 2014, the results are only now being released, on the grounds that they needed to be validated or a recount conducted.

Tanzania has been here before – in 2009 a similar report highlighting a serious drop in elephant numbers in the Selous was buried. The figures, to great official embarrassment, were subsequently leaked at a major international meeting.

Faced with such a major and ongoing crisis, the Government has defiantly moved to curb transparency on the issue when last month its Parliament passed an oppressive Statistics Bill which in effect allows it to bury any number of embarrassing realities by making it a criminal offence to publish data not endorsed by the National Bureau of Statistics.

Earlier this year, the Government banned sales of The East African newspaper in Tanzania which, among other important issues, had also widely covered EIA’s Vanishing Point report.

In Tanzania, the reaction to Vanishing Point was led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bernard Membe, who told Parliament: “The EIA report has been cooked up with the aim of tainting the good reputation of our country and that of our friends, the People’s Republic of China. It is a patched up report, whose release has been timed to serve an agenda well known to us.”

He further insisted: “Accusations the Government of Tanzania pays no attention to illegal ivory trade, and takes no action against culprits of the crime, are baseless.”

This despite the report providing clear and entirely contradictory evidence. As of October 2014, just one individual has been convicted since 2009 out of 13 cases involving 26.5 tonnes of ivory and implicating several individuals and companies. Not a single corrupt official implicated in the trade has been prosecuted.

Vanishing Point was widely shared with key Tanzanian Government officials and departments; to date, EIA has received no formal response.

Belated attempts to tackle the crisis – but still no transparency

There have been indications that the Government is belatedly stepping-up efforts to tackle poaching and ivory trafficking but its record remains tainted with suppressed information.

At the Botswana Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade in March 2015, the Government made no reference to the severe decline in elephant population, instead choosing only to highlight cherry-picked positive examples of relative stability and bemoan its need of additional funding.

And as recently as April 30, 2015, Tanzania National Parks issued a press release denying a decrease in elephant population in Ruaha and claiming anti-poaching efforts have reduced poaching in the area.

This issue should be of serious concern for donors who are providing significant aid to Tanzania, which include efforts to combat illegal wildlife trade and strengthen Government accountability.

In 2012, donors committed nearly $2.6 billion in aid for Tanzania, with the top donors being World Bank (approx $643 million), USA (approx $419 million), European Communities (approx $183 million), UK (approx $178 million) and Japan (approx $42 million).

Almost two thirds of elephants slaughtered since 2006

EIA Executive Director Mary Rice said: “It’s been nearly a decade since EIA first exposed the scale of poaching and ivory trafficking in Tanzania and, despite all the warning signals and the wealth of information available to the Government, it appears that no genuine effort has been made to contain the crisis and secure the future of elephants in Tanzania.

“The Tanzanian Government must take responsibility for the devastation of Tanzania’s elephants from over 136,753 in 2006 to 43,521 elephants in 2014.

“The response of the Government needs to be drastically amplified as a priority, commensurate with the scale of the problem, and this must include transparency regarding the true scale of the problem and the arrest and prosecution of high-level ivory traffickers and the corrupt officials who enable them.”

 


 

Source: EIA.

 






G7, be warned: your ‘New Alliance’ threatens to destroy small-scale farmers





Small-scale food producers are collectively the leading investors in agriculture, estimated to produce 70% of the food in Africa.

Addressing food and nutrition insecurity on the continent requires the full participation of those who are already producing, and promoting an agricultural system based on human rights and food sovereignty through local control over natural resources, seeds, land, water, forests, knowledge and technology.

This is crucial for small-scale women and men farmers, pastoralists, livestock farmers, fisherfolk and hunter-gatherer societies. However, African governments and international donors support to African agriculture increasingly focuses on the extension of corporate led food and agricultural systems to the detriment of small-scale food producers.

One of the most worrying illustrations of this trend is the G8 ‘New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition’, launched in 2012 by the G8 and implemented in ten African countries.

The New Alliance, following similar initiatives such as AGRA and GROW Africa, is based on the simplistic assumption that corporate investment in agriculture will increase production and that this will automatically improve food and nutrition security and reduce poverty.

This logic completely neglects that food and nutrition security means consistent access to a diverse and nutritious diet, which will not be achieved simply by increasing food production. Moreover, much of the production supported by the New Alliance is in crops with relatively low nutritional value as well as in crops which are destined for export and/or non-food production.

We are already suffering the impacts!

Notwithstanding the lack of transparency in implementation of the New Alliance, experiences on the ground and case studies confirm that the policies promoted by the New Alliance facilitate the grabbing of land and other natural resources, further marginalize small-scale producers, and undermine the right to adequate food and nutrition.

The New Alliance cooperation framework agreements were hastily erected on the mere promise that the initiative will “unleash the power of the private sector”, ignoring the risks that will fall on small-scale food producers and other marginalized groups.

The agreements were made with no or little participation of small-scale food producers and groups affected by malnutrition, and they contain no concrete indicators on hunger and malnutrition.

Furthermore, neither the G8 nor the G7 has a mandate to pursue these policy changes in other countries; the adequate forum for agreement to policy guidance is the UN Committee on World Food Security where all concerned parties have a voice.

The adoption of New Alliance policy commitments by African countries enables companies to do business through the easing of export controls and tax laws, changing seed laws in the favor of multi-national companies, and through governments facilitating transfers of community land to investors.

In spite of the urgent need for tax revenue to fund rural community development, countries have agreed to reduce taxes on agribusiness and on the inputs used most heavily by large farms.

Existing projects backed by the New Alliance threaten small-scale farmers control over land and seeds, marginalize local markets and contribute to loss of biodiversity and soil fertility. This undermines the livelihoods of local communities and adequate nutrition based, among others, on access to diverse and nutritious diets.

In several countries, seed laws are being introduced that could effectively criminalize farmer-to-farmer seed exchange in the future. These policies and laws undermine peasants’ rights, bio-diversity, and the right to adequate food and nutrition.

They will exacerbate future climate and economic shocks for small-scale farmers, instead of building their resilience to cope with such shocks. These changes are being made without national debate, thereby undermining democratic structures.

The alternatives

Our organizations support investment alternatives made in response to the priorities of small-scale producers, and which contribute to the realization of the right to food. Alternative responses include provision of public services and infrastructure to support rural communities and local markets.

Incentives such as public procurement, will allow small-scale producers to make additional investments and increase food production through decentralized, autonomous, local and sustainable food systems.

While the New Alliance emphasizes the need to “link smallholders to markets” the projects it supports privilege global markets dominated by corporate traders, ignoring the existent vibrant and diverse local food systems that ensure the sustenance of the majority of Africa’s population today.

For small-scale producers market access in itself is not sufficient, but rather the conditions of their access are crucial as are the rules and logics by which particular markets operate. Small-scale producers are present above all in informal markets, which channel food for the majority of the population. Little data has been collected on existing food systems and more research and public investment should be targeted to support systems that are already working.

Supporting markets that respond to the logic of sustainable family farming can also have a positive impact on climate change, rural employment and migration flows. But it is crucial that small-scale food producers are in the driver’s seat and have their own independent organizations to support them to retain control of their land, natural resources and projects that affect them.

We call on you: abandon this disastrous course!

The African Union and the G7 are holding their Heads of States Summit in June 2015. We call on all Governments participating in the New Alliance to:

  • Stop all engagement in and support for the New Alliance. Governments should ensure that all other policies and programmes on food and nutrition security are coherent with their international human rights obligations, including in relation to the right to adequate food and nutrition, and follow the UN Food and Agricultural Organizations’ Guidelines on the Right to Food, and the UN Committee on World Food Security’s Land Tenure Guidelines.
  • Suspend implementation of policy commitments and projects until they are reviewed in each country by a multi-stakeholder platform that includes small-scale food producers’ organizations and marginalized groups. Withdraw from those policies and projects that fail to promote the right to food, that undermine land access and the tenure rights of women and communities, or that prioritize business interests over those of marginalized population groups and the environment.
  • Always defend the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of all communities affected by land deals and their full participation in the governance of land and natural resources.
  • Require full transparency of contracts and binding commitments for companies on rural employment and living wages, respecting ILO conventions with provisions for continual monitoring.
  • Respect farmers’ rights to produce, protect, use, exchange, promote and sell farm-saved seeds and expand support to farmer’s owned seeds banks and systems. Stop and review all processes that lead to seed laws based on UPOV 1991, patents or other laws that threaten small-scale farmers’ rights.
  • Enact public policies that support small-scale food producers and advance food sovereignty, the right to food, and agroecology with the full involvement of small-scale producers, civil society organizations, consumers and their organizations at national and regional levels.

 

The Global Convergence of Land and Water Struggles.

 


 

    Background: We, social movements, grassroots organizations and civil society organizations engaged in the defense of food sovereignty and the right to food in Africa, met at the World Social Forum in Tunis in March 2015 to unite those opposing the G8 ‘New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition’.

    Social movements and organizations from Africa shared their experiences and analysis about the impacts of the New Alliance in their countries and participants from all over the world agreed to support their struggles against this threat to food sovereignty and agro-ecology.

    As such, we joined the Global Convergence of Land and Water Struggles and adopted its Declaration. This statement reflects our discussions and our demands to governments engaged in the New Alliance and expresses support for the call on the G7 Presidency made by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa.

    To endorse this statement, please write to Gino Brunswijck: nafsn@aefjn.be

    List of signatories

    Argentina
    Unión Solidaria de Comunidades – Pueblo Diaguita Cacano
    Australia
    MADGE Australia Inc
    Belgium
    SOS Faim Belgique
    Cameroon
    SAILD (Service d’Appui aux Initiatives Locales de Développement)
    Canada
    National Farmers Union
    The Ram’s Horn
    The United Church of Canada
    Ethiopia
    MELCA
    France
    CADTM-France (Comité pour l’annulation de la dette du Tiers Monde)
    CCFD-Terre Solidaire
    Peuples Solidaires-ActionAid France
    Réseau Foi & Justice Afrique Europe Antenne France
    SOLIDARITÉ
    Germany
    Agrecol e.V. (Associaton for AgriCulture & Ecology)
    Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service
    Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung
    INKOTA-netzwerk
    Pesticide Action Network Germany
    Ghana
    Agriculture Sovereignty Ghana (ASG)
    Farmers Development Movement (FDM)
    Food Sovereignty Ghana
    General Agricultural Workers Union of the Trades Union Congress
    Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana (PFAG)
    Indonesia
    KRuHA (People’s Coalition for the Right to Water)
    International
    ActionAid International
    Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network
    Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)
    CIDSE
    Coalition for Equitable Land Acquisitions and Development in Africa (CELADA)
    Compassion in World Farming
    Corporate Europe Observatory
    Fahamu Africa-Networks for Social Justice
    Fern
    Food & Water Europe
    Friends of the Earth International
    GRAIN
    Grassroots International
    Greenpeace Africa
    La Via Campesina Southern and Eastern Africa
    Inades-Formation
    Organisation des Jeunesses Panafricanistes (OJP)
    Oxfam International
    Panafricaine pour l’Éducation au Développement Durable (PAEDD)
    Transnational Institute (TNI)
    VECO West Africa
    Italy
    Terra Nuova
    Kenya
    Growth Partners Africa -GPA
    Kenya Community Development Foundation (KCDF)
    Kenya Food Rights Alliance -KeFRA
    PELUM-Kenya
    Malawi
    Coalition of Women’s Farmers (COWFA)
    Mozambique
    ADECRU (Academic Action for the Development of Rural Communities)
    Nepal
    Garjan-Nepal
    Nigeria
    Center For Environmental Education And Development
    Environmental and Rural Mediation Centre
    Hope Foundation for the Lonely
    Justice, Development and Peace Centre, JDPC
    WOFAN Women Famers
    Senegal
    Enda Pronat
    Fédération des ONG du Sénégal (FONGS – Action paysanne)
    Forum social sénégalais (FSS)
    Réseau Africain Pour le Droit à l’Alimentation (RAPDA)
    WiLDAF/Sénégal
    South Africa
    Surplus People Project (South Africa)
    Switzerland
    Bread for all, the Development Service of the Protestant Churches in Switzerland
    Tanzania
    Green Belt Foundation
    Irrigation Training and Economic Empowerment Organization – IRTECO
    MVIWATA Kilimanjaro
    Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity (TABIO)
    The Netherlands
    Saka Mese Nusa AlifURU Foundation
    Stichting Down2Earth
    The Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples
    Togo
    Friends of Earth-Togo
    United Kingdom
    Biofuelwatch – UK
    The Ecologist
    EcoNexus
    Find Your Feet
    Global Justice Now
    Permaculture Association
    Scientists for Global Responsibility
    UK Food Group
    Women’s Environmental Network (WEN)
    World Family
    United States of America
    Africa Faith and Justice Network
    Biofuelwatch – US
    Bioscience Resource Project
    Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
    Food & Water Watch
    Friends of the Earth
    Inclusive Development International
    Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
    Labelgmos.org
    Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
    Oakland Institute
    Other Worlds
    PLANT (Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples)
    Washington Biotechnology Action Council
    Zambia
    PELUM Association

    See as PDF: Statement_on_the_new_alliance.pdf

     

     






‘Global Apollo’ programme for renewables cannot take off without political power





A group of prominent scientists has launched an ‘Apollo programme’ for renewables, called Global Apollo. Its mission is to make carbon-free electricity less costly than that generated from coal, and to do it within ten years.

It’s an international effort that will promote the technological advances required to produce the rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and so keep climate change to within the ‘safe’ limit of two degrees celsius.

It’s an ambitious if not audacious statement of intent that will seek to marshal the efforts of current and new generations of engineers and scientists.

And on its own it’s doomed to failure. Let me explain.

The Global Apollo mission takes inspiration not only from the Apollo Program that sent humans to the moon, but also the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS). What’s that got to do with climate change?

Well, the ITRS is a collaborative effort between the world’s largest chip manufacturers to understand, plan and ultimately resolve technological challenges that allow faster semiconductor chips. Over the past 30 years this has produced continual decreases in microchip prices along with steady performance improvements.

Faster and cheaper chips translates to better and cheaper electronic products that spur further innovation. It’s a win-win. But this is a terrible analogy for our current dependence on fossil fuels.

It’s a terrible analogy because the ITRS doesn’t operate in a world in which electronic vacuum tube manufacturers spend millions of dollars actively trying to undermine the development of semiconductors.

What renewables are up against

Take Shell, for instance, which has been particularly belligerent on exploiting its fossil fuel reserves. Speaking last month, the company’s CEO Ben van Beurden said:

“All the oil that we have, we will use … There will still be a need for hydrocarbons for years to come, and the decline in existing production is always going to be faster than the decline that the most successful [low carbon] policies can create. There is always going to be a need for investment.”

This explains why Shell’s drilling platform Polar Explorer is currently parked in Seattle, before heading north in the summer to start developing new fields in the Arctic.

That climate change is producing warmer temperatures in the Arctic and so reduced summer ice, which makes it easier to drill for more climate-changing fossil fuels, is either fortuitous or tragically ironic depending on your point of view.

We have a good idea of how much carbon we need to leave in the ground and it’s more than current known reserves. We don’t need to be prospecting for more fossil fuels. Shell attempts to avoid the conclusions of its behaviour by arguing for carbon capture and storage – removing the carbon dioxide from the point of pollution, or some other technologies that could scrub it out of the atmosphere.

However, given the feeble performance of carbon capture and storage and the requirements for sustained decreases in greenhouse gas emissions right now, this is equivalent to identifying the hard-to-fix element of problem, drawing a box around it and labelling it ‘this is where the magic happens’.

Earlier this year environmental campaigner and consultant Jonathon Porritt gave up working with Shell and concluded that it and BP will never transition away from being companies built around the exploitation of fossil fuels. It’s hard not to come to the same conclusion.

You may accept all that, but still feel it doesn’t seem fair to argue that companies like Shell are trying to stop the development of renewable energy. Yet oil and gas firms account for five out of the world’s top six companies by revenue. There are tremendous amounts of money to be made from digging up fossilised carbon, and these firms are profiting hugely from the status quo.

These profits buy access to power. Recent analysis from the Guardian shows that between 2010 and 2015, Shell alone met with UK ministers at least 112 times. This was nearly as much as the total number of meetings from 23 renewable energy companies over the same period.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the recently passed Infrastructure Act includes the passage on “maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the United Kingdom”.

This means the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will in future be legally obliged to promote the extraction of fossil fuels, while also being legally obliged to reduce emissions as a consequence of the 2008 Climate Change Act. Perhaps another magic trick is required?

Notwithstanding their very large revenues, oil and gas companies also receive extensive tax breaks and economic incentives to exploit more fossil fuels. The International Energy Authority estimated these were US$548 billion in 2013.

A recent working paper published by the IMF (‘How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?‘), which included figures for uncompensated damage to health and environment, put the figure over ten times higher, at $5.6 trillion per year.

The problems are political

It is on this landscape that Global Apollo launches. It and similar endeavours such as the Great Transition are urgently needed, but they will only succeed with buy-in from all sectors of society. That involves the challenge of leaving potentially trillions of dollars in the ground and with it the influence and power that could wield.

Power does not evaporate in the face of compelling argument. Building a vision of low-carbon energy generation is necessary for a sustainable future. But it isn’t sufficient. The power that fossil fuel companies currently enjoy must be challenged. This will require a leap as great as any of the technical and engineering advances of Global Apollo or the original Apollo Program.

This will require a high level of political engagement. That means dealing with power and money. It’s not as exciting as nuclear fusion of next generation solar power, but it’s just as important. One positive implication of that is that we can all play a part: we can vote and we can get engaged with the political process.

If that happens, if we are able to rein in the power and influence of oil and gas companies at the same time as help them transform into providers of low carbon energy, then Global Apollo may just work and in doing so surpass a footprint made in lunar dust nearly 46 years ago.

 


 

James Dyke is Lecturer in Complex Systems Simulation at the University of Southampton.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 






One fifth of Europe’s birds are in danger of extinction





A new assessment of European birds has revealed that nearly one fifth of species are at risk of extinction across the European Union.

Of the 82 ‘at risk’ species, 11 are ‘critically endangered; 16 Endangered and 55 Vulnerable. The greatest threats to their survival are habitat loss, climate change and increasingly intensive farming.

This list of threatened species in the UK includes 37 birds of the 246 species that regularly occur, including lapwing, puffin and curlew. The Balearic shearwater, a regular seabird visitor from the Mediterranean to UK shores, is listed as ‘critically endangered’ – the highest category of threat.

Other species such as the black-tailed godwit, eider, Arctic skua and kittiwake are listed as ‘endangered’, the second highest category of threat.

The findings come in the newly published European Red List of Birds, prepared over three years using IUCN’s methodology by a consortium led by BirdLife International and financed by the European Commission.

“These red list assessments provide another red warning that nature across Europe is in trouble”, said Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Conservation Director. “It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago that birds like lapwing and curlew would be threatened species in Europe – the status of many species is deteriorating across Europe.”

Notable successes amid the gloom

Over Europe as a whole, birds were faring better, with 13% at risk – 67 of the 533 species. Among the ten ‘critically endangered’ are the Sociable lapwing, Yellow-breasted bunting, and Slender-billed curlew. The study also found that 18 species are ‘endangered’ and an additional 39 ‘vulnerable’.

There have also been some improvements: 20 species previously considered regionally threatened and are now classified as ‘least concern in Europe’. These include the Dalmatian pelican, Ferruginous duck, Stone-curlew, Black kite, Lesser kestrel, Black-throated diver and Great bustard.

Another 25 species are still threatened in Europe, but now have a lower extinction risk than a decade ago, and have seen their threat level downlisted. For example, Zino’s petrel and Azores bullfinch, both previously considered to be ‘critically endangered’, are now merely ‘endangered’.

The Azores Bullfinch was driven to the edge of extinction on Sao Miguel, the only island where it occurs, mainly by the impact of invasive alien vegetation that had overrun its native forests. Habitat restoration spearheaded by BirdLife Partner SPEA has brought the species back, allowing it to be downlisted from ‘critically endangered’ to ‘endangered’, with the population bouncing back from 40 to around 400 pairs.

Karmenu Vella, European Commissioner for Environment, Fisheries and Maritime Policy, said: “These reports contain some worrying statistics – but they also show the value of well-targeted actions to protect the biodiversity we depend on both economically and socially through the services they provide.

“Our task is to find ways of building on those successes, and spreading them to other areas. They are also a valuable input to our on-going Fitness Check – Europe needs nature legislation that is fit for purpose.”

Ivan Ramirez, head of conservation at BirdLife Europe and Central Asia, said: “It is inspiring to see that many species targeted by conservation efforts, and supported by key tools such as the Birds Directive and the LIFE programme, are recovering. Yet it is shocking to see many species that used to be common and are now listed as threatened.”

Crisis demands a ‘deeper and broader response’

The conservation status of some species that were identified as being in trouble a decade ago haven’t improved, for example the  Egyptian vulture, Aquatic warbler, Greater spotted eagle and Little bustard.

Of these the Egyptian Vulture (‘vulnerable’) is endangered by poisoning, both in the Mediterranean breeding grounds and on its African wintering grounds. It also falls victim to electrocution on powerlines, shooting and loss of extensive agriculture habitat.

The Greater Spotted Eagle (‘critically endangered in the EU’), which nests in mature riverine forests in Eastern Europe, is declining owing to extensive habitat loss and persistent persecution.

Christina Ieronymidou, the European Species Programme Officer at BirdLife, said: “The European Red List tells us that we have done a decent job at rescuing the rarest species by protecting their last strongholds and taking actions such as eradication of invasive species and insulation of killer powerlines.

“But we are now faced with much bigger challenges, from the ecological degradation of our farmland to climate change. These problems require a much broader and deeper response.”

Such is the case, for example, of the ‘critically endangered’ Balearic shearwater , a seabird with a tiny breeding range on Spain’s Balearic Islands. Its small population of 3,193 breeding pairs is undergoing an rapid population decline owing to  predation at breeding colonies by introduced mammals and at-sea mortality as a result of fisheries by-catch.

Also ‘endangered’ from fishing are the Atlantic puffin and Northern fulmar, iconic birds of the North Atlantic seabird colonies, whose populations are plummeting under the combined blows of overfishing and climate change.

Intensive agriculture is the main threat for the ‘endangered’ Black-bellied Sandgrouse, which has declined owing to extensive loss of its steppe habitat in Spain, Portugal and Turkey, along with the Lanner falcon.

The large scale conversion of dry grasslands and traditional dryland cereals to intensive agriculture is driving declines in a whole suite of species across the Mediterranean.

Setting the agenda for the EU’s conservation policy

The European Red List of Birds assesses birds across two geographical levels: the European Union (except Croatia); and the wider continent of Europe (stretching from Greenland eastwards across Europe to Turkey and European Russia).

The RSPB, the UK partner of BirdLife International, believes the publication will set the base for European conservation and policy work to be done in the coming years.

“The Red List data provides a solid baseline for monitoring future trends in European biodiversity and for guiding conservation actions”, said Craig Hilton-Taylor, Head of the Red List Unit, IUCN Global Species Programme.

“The European Red List of Birds clearly shows the need for constant vigilance and increased action if we are to prevent the loss of biodiversity in Europe.”

 


 

The report:European Red List of Birds‘.

 






Africa’s farmers fight the corporate takeover of seeds, land and food





“We, the small holder farmers, want to have good lives,” says Victoria Adongo from the Peasant Farmers’ Association of Ghana. “We have our seed systems that we like and are proud of. So we do not want multinational companies to come in and take over.”

Not only can agroecology increase Africa’s farming yields, unlike corporate-led farming, it can help farmers control their land, seeds and livelihoods, and build resilient local economies.

Adongo, speaking in Global Justice Now’s new short film Whoever Controls Seeds, Controls the Food System (see embed, below) – launched this week – is explaining what could be at stake if Ghana’s parliament passes new seed laws backed by G8 governments.

Traditionally, Ghana’s farmers have saved, swapped and bred seeds to suit their local conditions over generations. Yet the proposed Plant Breeders Bill would give corporations control over new kinds of seeds. Farmers would be restricted from saving and swapping them, and many who buy them would end up in debt. Meanwhile, traditional seed varieties could be lost forever.

Ghana’s Plant Breeders Bill (often referred to as ‘the Monsanto law’) is just one of the many new laws being pushed by the G8’s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition across ten African countries.

As ‘New Alliance’ meets in Capetown, farmers say ‘No!’

In return for aid and investment, African governments are reforming laws to help big businesses like Monsanto and Unilever access land, push corporate seeds and control markets in the name of tackling hunger and poverty.

Yet the Peasant Farmers’ Association of Ghana are one of nearly a hundred farmer and campaign groups around the world to renew their call this week to governments to end their support for the initiative. The call comes at the same time as the politicians and agribusiness representatives come together for a secretive meeting of the New Alliance in Cape Town ahead of the G8’s Leadership Council at the beginning of June.

The groups claim that the New Alliance and other programmes “facilitate the grabbing of land and other natural resources, further marginalize small-scale producers, and undermine the right to adequate food and nutrition.”

In stark contrast to the fanfare with which the New Alliance was launched in 2012, G8 countries including the US and the UK have gone notably quiet on their support for the initiative in the last year. With reports of the farming communities being hit hard by new laws and corporate investments associated with the initiative, it seems the G8 are more cautious to sing its praises.

In January, a report co-published by Global Justice Now exposed how farmers in Nigeria’s Taraba State are resisting a land grab by US company Dominion Farms. As part of Nigeria’s New Alliance agreement backed by the US and UK governments, Dominion Farms are planning to establish a 30,000 hectare rice plantation that will displace farmers who have worked the land for generations. The community has yet to receive any proposals for compensation or resettlement.

‘Development’ creating a new class of landless debt peons

Then in March, Action Aid released a report detailing the impacts of a New Alliance-backed investment by EcoEnergy on communities in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. EcoEnergy project has been held up as a flagship investor under the New Alliance and the G8-backed Southern Agricultural Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), a scheme to help corporations including Monsanto, Unilever and Nestle access resources across 350,000 hectares of prime farming land.

With land grabs under fire from farmers and NGOs, G8 states have been keen to champion outgrower schemes like EcoEnergy’s that contract farmers to grow produce for corporate processing and export instead of buying up land directly.

Yet Action Aid’s report shows that farmers working on the scheme are being pushed into dangerous levels of debt and the company appears to have vastly over-estimated its financial benefit to the local population. Meanwhile, farmers who have been displaced by the scheme are getting little choice in where they are resettled.

All this follows three years in which the New Alliance has struggled to show its positive impact. The program’s latest progress report didn’t indicate any impact on poverty or food security, and highlighted that many corporations were failing to report on their benefits for local communities.

£600 million of UK aid money supporting the corporate power grab

In May, the UK’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact claimed that programs including the New Alliance “can serve as little more than a means of promotion for the companies involved and a chance to increase their influence in policy debates.”

In other words, the £600 million of aid money that the UK has poured into the New Alliance has been spent subsidising the publicity campaigns of the multinational corporations involved in the scheme.

Yet with the case against the New Alliance strengthening, the looming threat of Ghana’s seed law shows that, without action, the program will continue to hit farmers hard. Global Justice Now is among many voices calling on our governments for a radical change in the way we support better food systems.

Small-scale farmers are the main investors in African farms, and feed 70% of the continent. Our recent report – From the Roots Up: How Agroecology Can Feed Africa – shows how with the right support, these farmers can use their own solutions to sustainably feed their communities, free from corporate control.

Not only can agroecology increase Africa’s farming yields, unlike corporate-led farming, it can help farmers control their land, seeds and livelihoods, and build resilient local economies. The New Alliance is on shaky ground – it’s time to call for change.

 


 

Report: From the Roots Up: How Agroecology Can Feed Africa.

Chris Walker is a campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now.

This article was originally published on Common Dreams. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

 






‘Global Apollo’ programme for renewables cannot take off without political power





A group of prominent scientists has launched an ‘Apollo programme’ for renewables, called Global Apollo. Its mission is to make carbon-free electricity less costly than that generated from coal, and to do it within ten years.

It’s an international effort that will promote the technological advances required to produce the rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and so keep climate change to within the ‘safe’ limit of two degrees celsius.

It’s an ambitious if not audacious statement of intent that will seek to marshal the efforts of current and new generations of engineers and scientists.

And on its own it’s doomed to failure. Let me explain.

The Global Apollo mission takes inspiration not only from the Apollo Program that sent humans to the moon, but also the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS). What’s that got to do with climate change?

Well, the ITRS is a collaborative effort between the world’s largest chip manufacturers to understand, plan and ultimately resolve technological challenges that allow faster semiconductor chips. Over the past 30 years this has produced continual decreases in microchip prices along with steady performance improvements.

Faster and cheaper chips translates to better and cheaper electronic products that spur further innovation. It’s a win-win. But this is a terrible analogy for our current dependence on fossil fuels.

It’s a terrible analogy because the ITRS doesn’t operate in a world in which electronic vacuum tube manufacturers spend millions of dollars actively trying to undermine the development of semiconductors.

What renewables are up against

Take Shell, for instance, which has been particularly belligerent on exploiting its fossil fuel reserves. Speaking last month, the company’s CEO Ben van Beurden said:

“All the oil that we have, we will use … There will still be a need for hydrocarbons for years to come, and the decline in existing production is always going to be faster than the decline that the most successful [low carbon] policies can create. There is always going to be a need for investment.”

This explains why Shell’s drilling platform Polar Explorer is currently parked in Seattle, before heading north in the summer to start developing new fields in the Arctic.

That climate change is producing warmer temperatures in the Arctic and so reduced summer ice, which makes it easier to drill for more climate-changing fossil fuels, is either fortuitous or tragically ironic depending on your point of view.

We have a good idea of how much carbon we need to leave in the ground and it’s more than current known reserves. We don’t need to be prospecting for more fossil fuels. Shell attempts to avoid the conclusions of its behaviour by arguing for carbon capture and storage – removing the carbon dioxide from the point of pollution, or some other technologies that could scrub it out of the atmosphere.

However, given the feeble performance of carbon capture and storage and the requirements for sustained decreases in greenhouse gas emissions right now, this is equivalent to identifying the hard-to-fix element of problem, drawing a box around it and labelling it ‘this is where the magic happens’.

Earlier this year environmental campaigner and consultant Jonathon Porritt gave up working with Shell and concluded that it and BP will never transition away from being companies built around the exploitation of fossil fuels. It’s hard not to come to the same conclusion.

You may accept all that, but still feel it doesn’t seem fair to argue that companies like Shell are trying to stop the development of renewable energy. Yet oil and gas firms account for five out of the world’s top six companies by revenue. There are tremendous amounts of money to be made from digging up fossilised carbon, and these firms are profiting hugely from the status quo.

These profits buy access to power. Recent analysis from the Guardian shows that between 2010 and 2015, Shell alone met with UK ministers at least 112 times. This was nearly as much as the total number of meetings from 23 renewable energy companies over the same period.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the recently passed Infrastructure Act includes the passage on “maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the United Kingdom”.

This means the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will in future be legally obliged to promote the extraction of fossil fuels, while also being legally obliged to reduce emissions as a consequence of the 2008 Climate Change Act. Perhaps another magic trick is required?

Notwithstanding their very large revenues, oil and gas companies also receive extensive tax breaks and economic incentives to exploit more fossil fuels. The International Energy Authority estimated these were US$548 billion in 2013.

A recent working paper published by the IMF (‘How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?‘), which included figures for uncompensated damage to health and environment, put the figure over ten times higher, at $5.6 trillion per year.

The problems are political

It is on this landscape that Global Apollo launches. It and similar endeavours such as the Great Transition are urgently needed, but they will only succeed with buy-in from all sectors of society. That involves the challenge of leaving potentially trillions of dollars in the ground and with it the influence and power that could wield.

Power does not evaporate in the face of compelling argument. Building a vision of low-carbon energy generation is necessary for a sustainable future. But it isn’t sufficient. The power that fossil fuel companies currently enjoy must be challenged. This will require a leap as great as any of the technical and engineering advances of Global Apollo or the original Apollo Program.

This will require a high level of political engagement. That means dealing with power and money. It’s not as exciting as nuclear fusion of next generation solar power, but it’s just as important. One positive implication of that is that we can all play a part: we can vote and we can get engaged with the political process.

If that happens, if we are able to rein in the power and influence of oil and gas companies at the same time as help them transform into providers of low carbon energy, then Global Apollo may just work and in doing so surpass a footprint made in lunar dust nearly 46 years ago.

 


 

James Dyke is Lecturer in Complex Systems Simulation at the University of Southampton.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 






One fifth of Europe’s birds are in danger of extinction





A new assessment of European birds has revealed that nearly one fifth of species are at risk of extinction across the European Union.

Of the 82 ‘at risk’ species, 11 are ‘critically endangered; 16 Endangered and 55 Vulnerable. The greatest threats to their survival are habitat loss, climate change and increasingly intensive farming.

This list of threatened species in the UK includes 37 birds of the 246 species that regularly occur, including lapwing, puffin and curlew. The Balearic shearwater, a regular seabird visitor from the Mediterranean to UK shores, is listed as ‘critically endangered’ – the highest category of threat.

Other species such as the black-tailed godwit, eider, Arctic skua and kittiwake are listed as ‘endangered’, the second highest category of threat.

The findings come in the newly published European Red List of Birds, prepared over three years using IUCN’s methodology by a consortium led by BirdLife International and financed by the European Commission.

“These red list assessments provide another red warning that nature across Europe is in trouble”, said Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Conservation Director. “It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago that birds like lapwing and curlew would be threatened species in Europe – the status of many species is deteriorating across Europe.”

Notable successes amid the gloom

Over Europe as a whole, birds were faring better, with 13% at risk – 67 of the 533 species. Among the ten ‘critically endangered’ are the Sociable lapwing, Yellow-breasted bunting, and Slender-billed curlew. The study also found that 18 species are ‘endangered’ and an additional 39 ‘vulnerable’.

There have also been some improvements: 20 species previously considered regionally threatened and are now classified as ‘least concern in Europe’. These include the Dalmatian pelican, Ferruginous duck, Stone-curlew, Black kite, Lesser kestrel, Black-throated diver and Great bustard.

Another 25 species are still threatened in Europe, but now have a lower extinction risk than a decade ago, and have seen their threat level downlisted. For example, Zino’s petrel and Azores bullfinch, both previously considered to be ‘critically endangered’, are now merely ‘endangered’.

The Azores Bullfinch was driven to the edge of extinction on Sao Miguel, the only island where it occurs, mainly by the impact of invasive alien vegetation that had overrun its native forests. Habitat restoration spearheaded by BirdLife Partner SPEA has brought the species back, allowing it to be downlisted from ‘critically endangered’ to ‘endangered’, with the population bouncing back from 40 to around 400 pairs.

Karmenu Vella, European Commissioner for Environment, Fisheries and Maritime Policy, said: “These reports contain some worrying statistics – but they also show the value of well-targeted actions to protect the biodiversity we depend on both economically and socially through the services they provide.

“Our task is to find ways of building on those successes, and spreading them to other areas. They are also a valuable input to our on-going Fitness Check – Europe needs nature legislation that is fit for purpose.”

Ivan Ramirez, head of conservation at BirdLife Europe and Central Asia, said: “It is inspiring to see that many species targeted by conservation efforts, and supported by key tools such as the Birds Directive and the LIFE programme, are recovering. Yet it is shocking to see many species that used to be common and are now listed as threatened.”

Crisis demands a ‘deeper and broader response’

The conservation status of some species that were identified as being in trouble a decade ago haven’t improved, for example the  Egyptian vulture, Aquatic warbler, Greater spotted eagle and Little bustard.

Of these the Egyptian Vulture (‘vulnerable’) is endangered by poisoning, both in the Mediterranean breeding grounds and on its African wintering grounds. It also falls victim to electrocution on powerlines, shooting and loss of extensive agriculture habitat.

The Greater Spotted Eagle (‘critically endangered in the EU’), which nests in mature riverine forests in Eastern Europe, is declining owing to extensive habitat loss and persistent persecution.

Christina Ieronymidou, the European Species Programme Officer at BirdLife, said: “The European Red List tells us that we have done a decent job at rescuing the rarest species by protecting their last strongholds and taking actions such as eradication of invasive species and insulation of killer powerlines.

“But we are now faced with much bigger challenges, from the ecological degradation of our farmland to climate change. These problems require a much broader and deeper response.”

Such is the case, for example, of the ‘critically endangered’ Balearic shearwater , a seabird with a tiny breeding range on Spain’s Balearic Islands. Its small population of 3,193 breeding pairs is undergoing an rapid population decline owing to  predation at breeding colonies by introduced mammals and at-sea mortality as a result of fisheries by-catch.

Also ‘endangered’ from fishing are the Atlantic puffin and Northern fulmar, iconic birds of the North Atlantic seabird colonies, whose populations are plummeting under the combined blows of overfishing and climate change.

Intensive agriculture is the main threat for the ‘endangered’ Black-bellied Sandgrouse, which has declined owing to extensive loss of its steppe habitat in Spain, Portugal and Turkey, along with the Lanner falcon.

The large scale conversion of dry grasslands and traditional dryland cereals to intensive agriculture is driving declines in a whole suite of species across the Mediterranean.

Setting the agenda for the EU’s conservation policy

The European Red List of Birds assesses birds across two geographical levels: the European Union (except Croatia); and the wider continent of Europe (stretching from Greenland eastwards across Europe to Turkey and European Russia).

The RSPB, the UK partner of BirdLife International, believes the publication will set the base for European conservation and policy work to be done in the coming years.

“The Red List data provides a solid baseline for monitoring future trends in European biodiversity and for guiding conservation actions”, said Craig Hilton-Taylor, Head of the Red List Unit, IUCN Global Species Programme.

“The European Red List of Birds clearly shows the need for constant vigilance and increased action if we are to prevent the loss of biodiversity in Europe.”

 


 

The report:European Red List of Birds‘.

 






The green energy revolution is exciting – but don’t forget the pollution!





The recent unveiling by Tesla founder Elon Musk of the low-cost Powerwall storage battery is the latest in a series of exciting advances in battery technologies for electric cars and domestic electricity generation.

We have also seen the development of an aluminium-ion battery that may be safer, lighter and cheaper than the lithium-ion batteries used by Tesla and most other auto and technology companies.

These advances are exciting for two main reasons. First, the cost of energy storage, in the form of batteries, is decreasing significantly. This makes electric vehicle ownership and home energy storage much more attainable.

The second, related reason is that these cheaper green technologies may make the transition to a greener economy easier and faster than we have so far imagined (although, as has been recently pointed out on The Conversation, these technologies are only one piece of the overall energy puzzle).

Beware the industrial option

These technological advances, and much of the excitement around them, lend themselves to the idea that solving environmental problems such as climate change is primarily a case of technological adjustment.

But this approach encourages a strategy of ‘superindustrialisation’, in which technology and industry are brought to bear to resolve climate change, through resource efficiency, waste reduction and pollution control. In this context, the green economy is presented as an inevitable green technological economic wave.

But the prospect of this green economic wave needs to be considered within a wider environmental and social context, which makes solving the problems much more complex. Let’s take electric vehicles as an example.

The ecological damage of cars, electric or otherwise, is partly due to the fact that the car industry generates more than 3 million tonnes of scrap and waste every year. In 2009, 14 million cars were scrapped in the United States alone.

The number of cars operating in the world is expected to climb from the current 896 million to 1.2 billion by 2020. The infrastructure associated with growing vehicle use, particularly roads, also makes a significant contribution to the destruction of ecosystems and arguably has important social costs.

Are electric vehicles ‘better enough’?

Electric vehicles (EVs) offer a substantial greenhouse gas emission improvement from the internal combustion engine. However, this improvement depends on green electricity production.

An EV powered by average European electricity production is likely to reduce a vehicle’s global warming potential by about 20% over its life cycle. This is not insignificant, but it is nowhere near a zero-emission option.

In large part, the life-cycle emissions of an electric vehicle are due to the energy-intensive nature of battery production and the associated mining processes. Indeed, there are questions around battery production and resource depletion, but perhaps more concerning is the impact that mining lithium and other materials for the growing battery economy, such as graphite, will have on the health of workers and communities involved in this global production network.

Processes associated with lithium batteries may produce adverse respiratory, pulmonary and neurological health impacts. Pollution from graphite mining in China has resulted in reports of ‘graphite rain’, which is significantly impacting local air and water quality.

The production of green technologies creates many interesting contradictions between environmental benefits at the point of use, versus human and environmental costs at the production end.

Baoding, a Chinese city southwest of Beijing, has been labelled the greenest city in the world or the world’s only carbon-positive city. This is because Boading produces enormous quantities of wind turbines and solar cells for the United States and Europe, and has about 170 alternative energy companies based there.

But last year the air in the city of Baoding was declared to be the most polluted in China – a country where air quality reportedly contributes to 1.2 million deaths each year. These impacts need to be placed into any discussion or policy frameworks when exploring the shift to a ‘greener’ future.

Beware new problems from new solutions

We should be excited about the shift to greener cars and affordable home electricity storage units, but in the process of starting to solve the technological challenges of climate change we must ensure that we are not creating environmental problems, particularly for the largely unseen workers and communities further up the production stream.

Our response to climate change needs to be more than just a technological adjustment. We argue that the shift to a green economy requires more transformative social political actions via skills and training, worker participation, and the coming together of environmental organisations, unions, business and government.

Indeed, the world of work is a critical site for emission reductions: 80% of Europe’s carbon emissions are workplace-related.

As we adopt emerging greener technologies, we will have to look beyond our shiny new Powerwall, or the electric car parked on the front drive, to ensure that the environmental and social changes promised by green technologies are not just illusions.

 


 

Caleb Goods is Postdoctoral research fellow at York University, Canada.

Carla Lipsig-Mumme is Professor of Work and Labour Studies at York University, Canada.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation