Alternatively the whole carbon mania is as mad as a hatter - fuelled by a mixture of hair-shirtism and cynical money making opportunism.

You could call it fiddling whilst Rome burns.

But hang on. The stuff gets counted somewhere. If we export our manufacturing to China then the emissions are made and accounted for there. If China wants to reduce its emissions it cuts down on what it makes for export.

[Of course, the fact that China appears to have a coherent energy policy we donj't doesn't come into it.]

Here's a fa(r more sensible and sustainable solution .....

Hold the importers of goods responsible for the working conditions, emissions, H&S, pensions, training and education of those people employed wherever in the world in the manufacture of the goods they sell.

This would halt the transfer of money from the poor to the rich, help to stop exploitation, and reduce the stupid transportation of materials halfway round the world for them then to be transport halfway round the world again as manufactured products.

The real problem is fast-progressing de-industrialization of so-called developed countries. Being ultimate consumer that produces nothing of value looks fine - until the money ends.

Using a faulty accounting system creates a kind of Alice in Climate Wonderland world in which up is down, the wrong people take the blame and the kingdom is never put in order.

This is absurd. All that matters is that someone has to account for the CO2 produced. Why should it be consumers instead of producers? Both will pass the price on to the customer. Both will result in CO2 reductions.

Think of the difficulty of trying to track goods and work out how much CO2 they have emitted. It is a nightmare, but doing it where they are produced looks like the easier solution to me.

It is hard to escape the opinion that the Greens don't like this because it does not punish British consumers enough - and it does not generate enough work for their own private consultancies. After all, someone will have to do all that verifying. Much better to do it in the UK than in China isn't it?

You can argue about whose emissions belong to which total, but if the demand for the imported products remains at the same level, so will the overall figure.

TheGreatRonRafferty

Here's a far more sensible and sustainable solution .....

Hold the importers of goods responsible for the working conditions, emissions, H&S, pensions, training and education of those people employed wherever in the world in the manufacture of the goods they sell.

Why not hold the end-user responsible?
If the consumers didn't demand these goods, they would not be provided.

Guardian readers can start the trend. Buy nothing that is imported from outside the EU, then you'll know that everything you consume has met all the Rafferty conditions.

Any non-EU components in your computer, modem, &c?

@TheGreatRonRafferty

Hold the importers of goods responsible for the working conditions, emissions, H&S, pensions, training and education of those people employed wherever in the world in the manufacture of the goods they sell.

This would halt the transfer of money from the poor to the rich, help to stop exploitation, and reduce the stupid transportation of materials halfway round the world for them then to be transport halfway round the world again as manufactured products

.

How? Have you any idea how complex modern international supply chains are? I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do - though your second sentence might equally read: "This would halt the transfer of money from the rich to the poor", but there is simply no way of managing this in practice.

Spot on, Andrew. And don't forget that national Kyoto accounts also exclude emissions from international aviation and shipping. The last government's planned aviation growth would have taken up roughly all of the UK's target total emissions by 2050 - ie everything else that went on in the UK would have to achieve zero net emissions to let flying expand as Nulab wanted without busting their proudly proclaimed emissions reduction target. The then Energy and Climate Change Secretary, one Ed Miliband, defended this fantasy.

Whatever else they have and have not done, at least the Coalition vetoed new runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, and have kicked airport expansion into the long grass for a while by starting a somewhat leisurely review.

Other downright peculiarities emerge, such as the boomerang trade ,which sees the UK importing and exporting often near identical amounts of goods, like sending 5,000 tonnes of toilet paper to Germany, then importing 4,000 tonnes

.

Does that really matter though? It costs virtually nothing to transport goods around the world by sea, and the cost, or even carbon cost of sourcing paper for London bums from Germany may well be less than the cost of driving it down from Scotland.

oldbrew
1 May 2011 10:20AM
You can argue about whose emissions belong to which total, but if the demand for the imported products remains at the same level, so will the overall figure.

Yes but the author seems to be arguing against trade and consumption as such, without acknowledging that low-cost workers consume less and therefore emit less carbon.

Slave labour is a very environmentally friendly option and I'm surprised the green movement aren't more actively promoting it, given the relatively low value they assign to human happiness.

Not to worry, in 67 months we're all doomed anyway. DOOMED I tells 'ya !!

Why not hold the end-user responsible?
If the consumers didn't demand these goods, they would not be provided.

Guardian readers can start the trend. Buy nothing that is imported from outside the EU, then you'll know that everything you consume has met all the Rafferty conditions.

Any non-EU components in your computer, modem, &c?

Does the consumer have a realistic choice? If they don't, WHY should they be "held responsible" and how would they be? Except of course, my suggestion DOES make them "responsible" in so far as they'd be paying the extra.

When an importer decides that he wishes to screw more profit out of his sales - and frequently the end-price is not reduced in line with costs (and if you can't think of some examples, then you're not thinking), by employing very poor people in sweatshops, working 7 days a week, sleeping in factory dormitories, being paid as little as possible, and avoiding paying tax in the producer and consumer countries, then who the hell CAN be held responsible?

Now, just explain to me YOUR choice as to what, where and who makes your computer, bucket, books, light bulbs, vacuum cleaner, ball of string, and what control you have over it? Governments are the only agencies that can set standards for their country. In the past, "dumping" was a practise not just frowned upon, but actively prevented.

@TheGreatRonRafferty

"Hold the importers of goods responsible for the working conditions, emissions, H&S, pensions, training and education of those people employed wherever in the world in the manufacture of the goods they sell.

"This would halt the transfer of money from the poor to the rich, help to stop exploitation, and reduce the stupid transportation of materials halfway round the world for them then to be transport(ed) halfway round the world again as manufactured products."

Ron, I'm trying to work out how this would work in practice.

Say you're a small company importing widgets -- e.g. mobile phones -- from a far-away country whose writing system you don't read.

The jurisdiction of laws made in your country (such as those implied by "Hold the importers of goods responsible for the working conditions, emissions..." etc.) does not of course extend to the country where the goods are made.

Neither do you have any representation, or even physical presence, in that country. Neither do you have any way of knowing how reliable the information is about conditions, emissions etc. in that country. Perhaps you can't even read the newspapers in the country. The best you can do is rely on assurances from people within that country, or (imperfect) international agreements on trade.

Does that mean you shouldn't import the widgets? If you don't, someone else will. And how can you be "held responsible" for a situation you have no control over?

The point about moving stuff unnecessarily around the world is unarguable. But I'm trying to work through who would be held (presumably legally) responsible, where, and by whose laws.

I seem to have missed the whole 'carbon mania', Scorf. Is it fun? Certainly a fascinating phenomenon if it can combine "hair-shirtism" and "cynical money making opportunism." So unlikely a pairing that one could almost imagine it to be the figment of some sort of determinedly inerudite projection.

Not sure which figurative 'Rome 'is burning here either-- the Rome of our market freedom and precious bodily fluids? Are hey flammable? Threatened by the opportunistic, self-denying preversions of watermelon environmentalists, and the pitiless, inexorable advance of reality's liberal bias?

Do you perhaps mean hirsutism?

Think of the difficulty of trying to track goods and work out how much CO2 they have emitted. It is a nightmare, but doing it where they are produced looks like the easier solution to me.

Why is it a nightmare? Why is it easier? Why do you pretend to care? Are you labouring under the misapprehension that this article is about some sort of carbon trading accounting?

Most of all -- how can you be so content to perpetually drag down the intellectual quality of debate? Do you have any aim other than driving it into the ditch?

And I wonder what proportion of Greens have 'private consultancies'.

Wow, is the CAGW scam still struggling on? I haven't been bothering with it much lately. Can't have much longer to go. Once more: anthropogenic CO2 is not any kind of problem. CAGW is a fraud and a scam. It's also over, though it's held up by so many vested financial and political interests it's taking an awfully long time to finally die.

The UK has targets under the Kyoto protocol

Which we should immediately renounce as absurd and unworkable but mostly entirely unnecessary.

and legal obligations under the Climate Change Act to reduce emissions.

...which laughable rubbish should be repealed as soon as possible. Problems solved.

I'm all for cutting our BoP deficit by reducing imports, especially from countries with questionable employment and H&S practices, which pay derisory wages and don't buy from us, but only because I believe in the long run some form of protectionism will have to be introduced to prevent us eventually trying to pay for cheap clothes and poor quality consumer electronics by selling our heritage to foreigners.

iruka -

And I wonder what proportion of Greens have 'private consultancies'.

What, like this one?

The only people benefiting from the whole carbon trading scam are the administrators and bureaucrats.

It should be abolished forthwith.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, pal.

The whole "carbon emissions" thing has been totally blown out of proportion, anyway.

The last "X months and counting" was published at the beginning of February.

Is there a worldwide shortage and is this due to man made global warming?

Here's a fa(r more sensible and sustainable solution .....

Hold the importers of goods responsible for the working conditions, emissions, H&S, pensions, training and education of those people employed wherever in the world in the manufacture of the goods they sell.

This would halt the transfer of money from the poor to the rich, help to stop exploitation, and reduce the stupid transportation of materials halfway round the world for them then to be transport halfway round the world again as manufactured products.

It would also be great for British industry, because it would make British manufactured goods far more attractive to consumers, and it would put an end to exploitation in Asia by closing down their industries. The workers of Thailand and India would rejoice at being freed from such onerous factory conditions.

Out of interest, where does the NEF funding come from and do any decision makers listen to it?

Use the taxes at the producer end to move the local energy sources over to renewable and use the taxes at the consumer end to do the same thing. This way we get movement aways from fossil fuels on a global basis and the polluter ends up paying for the pollution irrespective of where the point of pollution is in relation to where the point of consumption is.

Why is common sense so difficult for some people to grasp.

There is no such thing as green capitalism...you cannot have a model that requires endless growth and expansion for its continued health and talk about 'green' ....without around 3% growth capitalism stalls and, as david harvey has remarked, 3% growth on what was happening around Manchester and Birmingham in the industrial revolution is one thing but 3% growth of everything happening in China, latin America, Indonesia?....how does one propose to 'green' that degree of material consumption and growth....capitalism can postpone its crises and move them around geographically but this idea of 'green', with its quotas and its protocols is a lie which conceals the continued destruction of our planet.

HowSoonIsNow

1 May 2011 10:42AM

Wow, is the CAGW scam still struggling on? I haven't been bothering with it much lately. Can't have much longer to go. Once more: anthropogenic CO2 is not any kind of problem. CAGW is a fraud and a scam. It's also over, though it's held up by so many vested financial and political interests it's taking an awfully long time to finally die.

Anthropogenic CO2 will not cease to be a problem until long after we have stopped releasing vast quantities of it.
I am sure that you are not interested in the science yourself, but anybody who is can find out more from this one http://www.skepticalscience.com/Plain-english-rebuttal-to-Global-warming-isnt-happening-argument.html

Last week saw commentators obsessed with minor fluctuations in the UK's GDP, a measure of the quantity, not quality, of economic activity.

Nonsense. Absolute garbage.

GDP is "the value of goods and services". Thus GDP can increase by the value increasing: it's not necessary to have an increase in the quantity.

Even more accurately, GDP is the value added to goods and services in the economy. And as Bob Solow (a Nobel Laureate in economics, unlike Simms and myself who both attended the LSE....although I graduated) has pointed out, 80% of the 20th century's growth in GDP came from the adding of more value. Only 20% came from the growth in resources consumed to make more stuff.

As an example of this, consider 20 grammes of copper. Which do you value as a use of that copper more? An inch or two of pipe buried in the walls of your house? Or the copper in the motherboard of the computer you're reading this on?

Out of interest, where does the NEF funding come from

Large chunks of it come from your and my tax money.

Trade's share of the global economy increased steadily in the last two decades and, in tandem, emissions from the production of traded goods and services rose from one fifth to more than one quarter of global CO2 emissions.

Oh come along Simms, these figures came out last week. And what they actually show is that traded carbon emissions rose more slowly than trade itself did. That is, that trade is *more efficient* in terms of emissions than not trade.

So, by trading we can have a higher standard of living for whatever emissions we are allowed to make: or alternatively, by trading we can have fewer emissions for whatever standard of living we are allowed to have.

To give you the actual figures. Trade rose, compounded, over the 18 years the report covers by some 6% pa. If emissions embedded in trade had risen by the same amount then they would have risen from 4.3 Gt to 12.27 Gt.

But they didn't, emissions embedded in trade rose to 7.8Gt. The carbon intensity of trade is thus falling. And so therefore is the savings we get in emissions from trade rising.

Trade is part of the solution, not part of the problem!

If trade leads to a fall in carbon intensity of production, as it seems to (to take the obvious example, growing pinapples in Central America certainly has lower emissions than trying to grow them in Kew Gardens, to take some less obvious, tomatoes from Spain are lower emission than UK grown, lamb from New Zealand lower than Welsh), then actually we don’t in fact want to reduce the trade that leads to such reductions in carbon intensity.

I looked out the window and thought it was a nice sunny day.

Then I logged onto the Guardian and realised that it was actually pissing down. Cheers.

assumes endless supplies of cheap oil and infinite natural resources

our future is power-sources from solar radiation (i.e. heat and light )
( lets begin by SERIOUSLY investing now )

like sending 5,000 tonnes of toilet paper to Germany, then importing 4,000 tonnes.

So conjecture -
who shipped the bigger roll?
who has the rougher posterior?
who prefers that horse called bidet?

Of course it is a money making opportunism and in which case the planet is not in danger and we shouldn't get conned into making more sacrifices for the profits of others.

Why not end the carbon scam altogether before these ecoloons do any more damage to our economy?

It always was completely bonkers, did people only just notice this?

In trying to revive a flawed and failing economic order...

What flaws and failings are those then?

You just made a sloganist claim with no evidence.

rather than looking forward and imagining how the world could be different, better.

That's what we do do and the world is becoming better. If that's what you want too, then it's time for you to stop the doom marketing, please.

BTW, it's 1 May.

Was that this month's countdown to global-hyper-mega-catastrophic doom CIF?
Or is that still to come today?
Or has it at last been been to rest in light of the facts?

There are a couple of approaches to the issue.

Carbon border tax (much loved by the French)
This would not be difficult to implement, and would be allowed under WTO rules (the WTO last year published a report saying as much. Implementing the tax would not be so different for anti-dumping cases where a dumping duty is "calculated by the EC. The Chinese would not like this tax, for perhaps obvious reasons since it would price their imports higher. From an economic point of view it makes sense. Dieter Helms and CEPS have done extensive work on this subject - mostly confirming that from an economic point of view it makes sense.

Recyclability/build for re-use/build for maintenance
Much imported stuff is built to be thrown away once it fails. Some rules have already been introduced with respect to re-cycling - but this is a very slow process.

Consume Less
An exhortation - which the great mass of people ignore.

So there you have it. Want to address outsourcing of emissions, BCTs are about the only way forward.

If trade leads to a fall in carbon intensity of production, as it seems to (to take the obvious example, growing pinapples in Central America certainly has lower emissions than trying to grow them in Kew Gardens, to take some less obvious, tomatoes from Spain are lower emission than UK grown, lamb from New Zealand lower than Welsh), then actually we don’t in fact want to reduce the trade that leads to such reductions in carbon intensity

Timworstall

The Central Am example might work, the Welsh lamb does not. Working on the basis that both "lambs" graze outside, I'd be interested to hear how moving the lamb in NZ by road to a ship and then half way across the world could be lower than say - me buying from Dewi in Llandeilo, salt marsh lanb from round the corner? The reality is it ain't. I would also note that the tomoates case is weak - Belgian & Dutch growers are very efficient - some taking heat from CHP systems - with minimal transport costs their tommies will have a very low carbon footprint.

Your generalisations and supporting examples are weak.

The Spain tomatoes one was from DEFRA.

New Zealand lamb admittedly, from the New Zeland Lamb Board or some such.

But I'm told that the numbers do stack up. No need to warm lambing sheds, no need to keep sheep in over the winter, no silage or such needed (I may have some of those words wrong, not very rural me).

MickGJ
Container vessels burn the cheapest, nastiest, sulphur containing oil, that nothing else can use.
Transport may be cheap in UK£ but not in pollution.

Pitthewelder

Why is common sense so difficult for some people to grasp.

Because it's not common and it doesn't make sense.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

NeverMindTheBollocks

1 May 2011 1:21PM

BTW, it's 1 May.

Was that this month's countdown to global-hyper-mega-catastrophic doom CIF?
Or is that still to come today?
Or has it at last been been to rest in light of the facts?

Which of these facts are you having trouble understanding?
Land surface air temperature. - Rising
Sea surface temperature. - Rising
Air temperature over the oceans. - Rising
Lower troposphere temperature - Rising
Ocean heat content. - Rising
Sea level. - Rising
Specific humidity. - Rising
Glaciers. - Melting
Northern Hemisphere snow cover. - Falling
Arctic sea ice. - Melting

Here's a far more sensible and sustainable solution .....

Make the selling of cheap shitty products (and services) unacceptable.

How often do you really need a new car/refrigerator/washing machine/3 piece suite/plasma tv/etc/etc.

Part of the problem is cheap and shoddy manufacture making frequent replacement essential, part is due to manufacturers holding back advances in technology, and part is due to genuine unanticipated technological change.

But there is still a huge inefficiency in the whole consumer based, growth based, profit based economy.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Polluting factories are a problem but I find it hard to see how politically anything can be done since it seems big business rules all.

Which of these facts are you having trouble understanding?

Most of them unfortunately, even though I try to find sources of unambiguous evidence, most of it is still scientifically disputed.

Land surface air temperature. - Rising
Sea surface temperature. - Rising
Air temperature over the oceans. - Rising
Lower troposphere temperature - Rising
Ocean heat content. - Rising
Sea level. - Rising
Specific humidity. - Rising
Glaciers. - Melting
Northern Hemisphere snow cover. - Falling
Arctic sea ice. - Melting

All of these are changing, some one way some another, getting at the net global changes is not easy.

And then, with a geologist's perspective, I have to question whether what is happening is 'unusual' in planetary climate terms over the last 3.5GA.

I am far more concerned that there are still many people who don't understand just how insignificant man is and how ineffectual these plans to reduce atmospheric 'greenhouse' gases will be in terms of 'arresting' global warming. See e.g. James Lovelock's various interviews, books, and sundry other publications over the last 15 years or so.

Of course, the best way to have an impact on the use of fossil fuels is to reduce demand, but that means population control - funny that we never hear much about that from those supporting these money making 'carbon emission reduction' schemes.

All this talk and writing about carbon credits and renewable energy is a con to allow some people[s] to get their hands on as much cash as they can, now and here.
There's only one planet Earth and it has one indivisable atmosphere made up mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, some inert gasses and an ever increasing amount of carbon dioxide. That's the atmosphere your and my grandchildren are going to inheret. God help them.
Llike Pontius Pilate perhaps I wash my hands clean of any blame (let me know, please, if you disagree). I never had a car, I walked or used public transport all my life, and in my 80 years I have flown in an aeroplane from somewhere back home to somewhere perhaps fewer than 10 times.

If I want to own and enjoy a cheap, garage-sized TV, all the fossil fuel emissions that result from making it don't get added to my home account, but to the country of manufacture, most probably China.

Gosh! The Chinese government had better do something about it then, eh?

the UK importing and exporting often near identical amounts of goods, like sending 5,000 tonnes of toilet paper to Germany, then importing 4,000 tonnes.

The UK and Germany 'do' nothing of the sort. UK companies compete with German ones and vice versa. It's called competition and in general terms it's most efficient and ultimately in our best interests.

It is, however, most gratifying that we have the edge on Germany when it comes to the balance of trade in bog roll. How are we doing in cars and machine tools?

To inherit (v.t.).

stoneshepherd

1 May 2011 3:29PM
Most of them unfortunately, even though I try to find sources of unambiguous evidence, most of it is still scientifically disputed.

Well, here is the link to the source for those again.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Plain-english-rebuttal-to-Global-warming-isnt-happening-argument.html
The evidence is not ambiguous, or credibly disputed.
A large percentage of the scientists who study this are convinced that this is a problem. As I am not an expert in their field, I am happy to take their word for it, the same as I do for medical science, physics, etc.

And then, with a geologist's perspective, I have to question whether what is happening is 'unusual' in planetary climate terms over the last 3.5GA.

If you are taking a geologist's perspective, then you should be aware that the current rates of change of these factors are unprecedented in the period during which our race has existed.
3.5 GA includes the Permian extinction, the "Great Dying". One of the theories to explain this event is that temperatures rose sufficiently to cause a large release of trapped methane from undersea clathates, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Jimmyji,

If you have lived in the west in anything like the lifestyle average of westerners then you would probably find that you have out polluted over 80% of the rest of humanity that has shared the same time and place on this earth.

Less is good but you are excusing your complicity by comparing yourself against the wrong end of the spectrum. However, I agree that,in the unlikely event , should a deity exist it would be nice if he/she/it would take pity on your decendents for the appaling state that we have left the atmosphere and the environment in.

Come on, guys. None of this is necessary. The verdict is in, and most people do not believe in man-made global warming, based as it was on corrupt and pseudo-scientific practices. The argument is over. The Guardian even deleted its Environment blog.

Why waste words?

From nef's most recent published accounts

Our funding sources are diverse and we receive funding from trusts, foundations, local, regional and national government and through consultancy contracts.

The accounts are a little unclear as to the exact source of funds, but it looks like about 15% of their income came from trading and voluntary donations and the rest (just short of £2 million) came from Johnny Taxpayer.