Avoiding cheap imports is the most effective way to reduce your carbon footprint, writes Kamleshan Pillay.
There has been much conjecture about what kind of problem climate change is. The executive director of Greenpeace International, Dr Kumi Naidoo called climate change a “human issue” while other prominent researchers such as Bill Nordhaus of Yale University and Professor Lord Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics frame the issue as a financial and economic matter.
I think many would agree that climate change is also a question of political will to force a legally binding agreement to abate the effects of global warming.
However, the real question that I have been asked as a climate change specialist is: What can we do about it?
I have heard numerous remedies for climate change and environmental issues proposed by activists, international organisations like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (or UNFCCC) and even by politicians trying to win votes.
The rhetoric is quite similar and can be anything from moving away from fossil fuels and installing smart-grid renewable energy systems to “meatless Mondays” and rain-water harvesting and, the old classic, recycling.
The problem with these “suggestions” is that they hardly address the real problem of reducing emissions.
Moreover, the lack of connectivity between these suggestions, or simply a lack of understanding by the layman as to how this makes a difference, compounded by scientists’ inability to provide a set of coherent solutions to the problem, is the real problem.
The lack of clarity in proposed solutions has a multitude of effects, the most important one being that people take on all these suggestions, and when they see the headlines splashed across news pages, talking of melting ice caps and soon-to-be homeless polar bears, they begin to believe that their actions are not making a real difference to the fight against climate change.
Apathy, of course, follows. Let’s make one thing clear: even though I agree climate change is a human, political, economic and financial issue, I believe, above all else, it is a trade issue.
Unfortunately, when people assess themselves personally in the climate change debate, they think about two things: their consumption of electricity or energy at home and fuel they use to commute.
However, people almost always forget that everything that we consume is manufactured consuming fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide!
I can guarantee that most readers have most of their clothes, crockery, laptops, mobiles and shoes made in China, Taiwan, India or Indonesia.
Now why is this significant? This is the important part and really, the answer to the question of what people, no matter their backgrounds or interests, can do to affect climate change.
When you consume goods that are produced in carbon-intensive markets like China and India (that are often also much cheaper), you are essentially creating a demand for the product.
Goods produced in China have a larger carbon footprint than anything locally produced. Raw materials need to be transported to areas (consuming fuel not to mention the energy used during the mining and extraction phase) where pre-processing occurs with more energy consumption.
These materials are then shipped to places like China and Taiwan where the manufacturing of products occurs before they are shipped off to other countries for consumption.
Consequently, goods made in China and elsewhere have a much higher carbon footprint even though they may be cheaper than locally produced goods. You may ask: “But aren’t South African markets also carbon intensive?”
Yes, they are but we do not have the added burden of importing our raw materials or shipping them to the consumer – or at least these transport and manufacturing costs are reduced.
Why can’t anything be done by governments about these carbon intensive goods from China and Taiwan that are bad for the environment? The answer is related to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The rules for free trade, which are stipulated in the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and were negotiated among parties as early as 1949, did not consider the possibility of environmental degradation.
The GATT also states that products cannot be discriminated against based on their production life cycles and carbon footprints, which results in these products still dominating the market at cheaper prices.
The implementation of border taxes and duties could see less carbon intensive products entering states. However this measure has seldom been enforced by major importing nations (specifically the US and the EU).
Consequently, we can only rely on educated consumer choice to reduce the demand of goods, which will in turn reduce the supply and production of goods. So, if we are to have any chance at alleviating climate change, then we must buy locally produced goods.
In spite of it being more expensive, the damage that buying cheaper products with a carbon intensive life cycle could cause is extremely alarming.
Buying local could also have secondary positive effects promoting more economic diversification making it more resilient to change while also promoting local employment.
Lastly, I would like to leave you with a scenario: just imagine every single country buying products from China and Taiwan, creating a demand for goods produced using fossil fuels. Now think of this created demand for products and how it causes manufacturers to create a demand for fossil fuels to manufacture their goods.
How much more of an impact will be made on the environment? The link is quite apparent; one can easily see the effects their consumer choice has on the demand of fossil fuels.
Climate change is exacerbated by the consumptive nature of society currently, which is only expected to increase in the future with population growth and more people aspiring to a westernised way of life. So, in a nutshell, keep it local and lekker.
Daily News
* Pillay is a PhD candidate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal within the School of Environmental Sciences. His dissertation evaluates climate and energy governance strategies for the Brics countries using applied mathematics techniques. He is a climate change and sustainability consultant with Environmental Resource Management (ERM) and a former Cambridge University Chevening scholar.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Independent Newspapers.