Advertisement

Green camouflage

Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0

I am often asked: 'Isn't trade a promoter of global warming; shouldn't we retreat from the Doha Development Round because of the Kyoto Protocol?' All successful lies have to have an element of truth in them, to become believable, and this one is no exception. Yes, all human activity has an environmental impact. The question is whether trade between nations is more environmentally damaging than trade within a country. The answer is 'no', because of competition and the need to be efficient to gain markets.

Economists make the case that, without subsidies and privileges, trade between countries can be less damaging than protected domestic economic activity. Most business is local, even for great exporting nations such as Germany or New Zealand, where 80 per cent of economic activity is domestic. There are those who argue for 'food miles' - an indicator of the environmental impact of food by how far it has travelled before reaching the consumer - or food taxes, to promote local agriculture ahead of imports. But they are putting an environmental camouflage jacket on an ugly, old protectionist model. This is just the argument that privileged agricultural interests in rich countries need to continue raiding taxpayers' purses, most of which goes to the richest producers at the expense of low-income earners.

Even when evidence shows that it is more energy efficient to ship kiwis from New Zealand to Europe than buy the fruits from subsidised suppliers in Europe, some environmentalists refuse to believe this logic. How can they oppose the import of Kenyan flowers that are cheaper and whose producers use less energy than their subsidised counterparts? And what about the poor consumer in rich countries, and jobs in poor countries?

Global climate change is an issue, but it is hypocritical to argue that it is better for the climate in California if China and India slow their growth and remain poor. The terrible pollution in Beijing and New Delhi is about the same as it was in London and Chicago 50 years ago. The River Thames is the cleanest it has been in 200 years. Pollution contributed to the cholera epidemics between 1831 and 1866 that killed more than 35,000 people. In 1861, it carried typhoid that killed Queen Victoria's husband, Albert. But there has been progress; a US$1 injection could today save millions of lives in poor countries, defeating TB and malaria as successfully as we have eliminated smallpox. Rich nations eradicated smallpox in the 1950s, poorer countries in the 1980s. It is no accident that the worst environmental problems were in closed, anti-trade economies like the former Soviet Union. This is still true of places like North Korea. Sure, we face different challenges today, given that more than 1,000 new cars are registered every day in Beijing, for example. But making people poor and wretched is not the answer. From being energy self-sufficient 20 years ago, China is now the second-biggest energy importer. Yet energy costs per industrial unit produced in China are nine times higher than a similar unit produced in Japan, and three times that of the US.

In the US, only 1 per cent of four-wheel-drive vehicles go off-road, and only 15 per cent of energy in a gallon (3.8 litres) of fuel reaches the wheels of a car. If the US managed the same fuel efficiency per car as Europe, it would not need Middle East oil. If oil prices truly reflected costs, industry would respond. Conservation gains can be made if we become more efficient.

Open societies that value democracy, civil society, competition and trade tend to have better environmental records. The dirtiest cities are also the poorest. When people are lifted out of poverty, are confident that their basic needs - food, clothing, shelter and a job - are being met, and that their children will be better off, they shift their focus to environmental, social and democratic issues.

Advertisement