In a networked economy with division of labor we all share in each other’s impacts.
November 15, 2024
Source: Garden Earth
Rob in Illinois commands 5,000 energy slaves. How can Susan in Zambia compete with that? Photo: Gunnar Rundgren (Rob) and Richard Mulonga (Susan)
The gap in consumption based emissions between rich and poor is appalling, but the gap in production based emissions between people competing in the same market is much bigger. But in the end, the allocation of blame to the different parts of society is futile, it is the metabolism of the global economy that is the culprit, not the individual organs.
In the previous article I wrote about consumption-based emissions and investment emissions. Here I want to turn to production and then to systems emissions.
I find it intriguing that there is so much discussion about emissions and climate justice from a consumption perspective and so little from a production perspective. I guess it has to do with the notion that consumers, in some magical way, are in control of the system. This myth is nurtured by capitalist ideology* as it gives the market economy a pseudo-democratic cloak.
It is the production, stupid
I argued that it is a bit strange to allocate the emission of an oil company to the shareholders, as shareholders, if anything, extract money from the companies they own shares of. It is perhaps more logical to allocate emissions to the companies themselves. Just 100 companies caused more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions between 1988 and 2016, according to a report published 2017. I haven’t looked into the detail, but it is not very surprising. These huge companies also had joint revenues of 18,000 billion US dollars 2023, i.e. 17% of the global GDP. But it is really “fair” to blame a steel mill for all the emissions from its steel manufacturing? Perhaps, but then how would the world look like without steel?
What about the steel workers and the oil drilling crews? How come there is such a focus on what people spend in their role as consumers and so little in their role as producers. Are we less responsible for “our” production emissions than for out consumption emissions, if so why? Are you not responsible for what you do in your job? “I just did my job” sounds like the classic excuse for torturers or perpetrators of war crimes or genocide?
While it is very efficient per ton-km, shipping still consumes a lot of energy. One single large container ship can use 200 ton of diesel per day and it is managed by a crew of 20. This means that the yearly use of diesel by the sailor, assuming 200 days of work is 2,000 ton, corresponding to more than 5,000 tons of CO2 just in direct emissions from combustion. In addition to that, the whole fuel chain from well extraction to use also cause emission, so the total emission by each sailor is closer to 6,000 ton CO2, not even counting all the emissions embedded in the ship, harbor infrastructure etc. This is more than the emission of 1,500 Swedes or 10,000 Ghanaians, by one single person.
The (fossil) energy needed to grow corn in Ontario, included the energy embedded in fertilizers and drying apart from obvious use such as for machinery, was estimated, by a team of Canadian scientists, to around 2 GJ per ton. It means that the energy use for 1 ton of corn corresponds to the energy of 44 liters of oil. An industrial farmer can farm some 400 hectares per man-year of labor and produce 4,000 ton corn on that land, with a total energy use of about 175,000 liters of oil. In turn, this corresponds to the energy needed to feed 5,000 people alive or the energy of 25,000 persons’ hard work.** The total emissions of this, including also nitrous oxide from fertilizer production and use, will amount to 1,200 ton of CO2 equivalents.
If we compare an industrial farm in the North with a smallholder in the South, we can note that the smallholder farmers have almost no emissions from their production and only manage to produce a ton of corn or so. Essentially, the human body of a smallholder in the South competes with many thousand persons’ work embedded in fossil fuels. It is obviously totally impossible for the manual farmer to compete with this, even with diesel prices reaching 2 dollars per liter (the price level in Sweden just a year ago). I find this perspective of energy fairness or justice to be more interesting and relevant than the “climate justice” perspective of consumption based emissions. It also show how extremely hollow the notion is that free trade in some way also is fair and just, common among neoliberal believers but not by their priests.
It is the Global Economy, stupid
From a systems perspective, once can question all these efforts to allocate emissions or blame between individuals and between countries. The economy is a network where all parts (well most parts) need each other. One would not blame the lungs for their carbon dioxide emission or the guts for our effluent of nutrients as we understand that the organs of the body have different roles and all are needed. So, why would it make sense for the human superorganism called “the economy”?
If you swap money for work with a cleaner you are not only paying for the cleaning, you are also paying for a part of that persons livelihood and consumption as s/he needs a place to live, food, clothing etc., in order to deliver the cleaning service you pay for. In addition, you probably got the money you pay, from the productive activities you are involved in (the work you do, the job you have). In that way the cleaner also shares in your impacts.
In a networked economy with division of labor we all share in each other’s impacts.
Another example: You have a mortgage loan for your house and you pay rent to a bank. The transaction itself has a minor impact on the environment. The payment of the rent means that your own consumption “space” is reduced. Meanwhile, some of the rent you pay will go to the salaries of bank staff and their offices, some to the shareholders and some will be used in the economy at large, for another person buying a car, for investment in new production or for a holiday trip to the Caribbean. The rent you have paid thus cause a cascade of effects and emissions. Over time and in average, the emission of those dollars, euros, rupiahs or yuans will correspond to the emission intensity of the economy.
As national economies are also in close connection with each other, it will – ultimately – be the average global emission intensity of the economy that will be the emission of your rent or any other expenditure you have, including the taxes you pay. Currently the global carbon dioxide intensity stands at 0.26 kg CO2 per US dollar of GDP. If your brutto salary is 50,000 dollars per year your share of global emissions would be 13 ton. In reality, if you earn 50,000 dollars, the added value of your work, i.e. the contribution to the global GDP is more likely to be somewhere between 60,000 and 70,000 dollars as your work also pays for investments as well as the profits generated in the company.
I speak here about carbon dioxide emissions, but one could make a similar case for biodiversity loss or other environmental impacts of a global magnitude.
A side note: It has always struck me as peculiar that the dominating method for assessing environmental impacts of various products (LCA) doesn’t include the people doing to job. But of course, as I demonstrated above it becomes virtually impossible to disentangle. Technocrats don’t like impossible methods, they like methods that generate figures, even if the figures are severely distorted.
On a systems level – or rather the Global Economy level – the task is simply to reduce the emission intensity and/or to shrink the economy. Both at the same time seems to be the only realistic option. Clearly, this can’t happen within the capitalist framework so an important part of the solution would be to decommodify the sectors most critical for human wellbeing. There are of course a lot of devilish details also in this proposition, but I leave that for now.
On a personal level, it seems to me that decoupling yourself from the global economy or substantially reducing your income, by working less, less efficiently or earning less, is the only way you can fully “take responsibility” for your emissions. Mind you, to reduce your spending and save money will make no difference as what you save will be used in the economy, unless you “retire” the money (which is one of the alternative economic ideas I believe it is worth looking into). To keep on producing the same will also not work as all that is produced also has to be consumed. Having said that, I still think there is a point in avoiding flying, saving energy, buying organic and buying less stuff. It contributes to a reduction in the average emission intensity and it gives you a certain peace of mind.
* I find it quite strange that capitalism is mostly discussed as an economic system and not as an ideology (while socialism or communism mostly are considered to be both). It adds to the narrative of capitalism being a natural system, or the only system, which in itself is an expression of an ideology.
** There are many versions and calculations of the number of “energy slaves” that are embedded in the energy resources we use. Apart from my own calculations linked in the text, this exercise by Jason Heppenstall is interesting. I believe that the exact figure is not particularly interesting, but the magnitude is.
Rob in Illinois commands 5,000 energy slaves. How can Susan in Zambia compete with that? Photo: Gunnar Rundgren (Rob) and Richard Mulonga (Susan)
The gap in consumption based emissions between rich and poor is appalling, but the gap in production based emissions between people competing in the same market is much bigger. But in the end, the allocation of blame to the different parts of society is futile, it is the metabolism of the global economy that is the culprit, not the individual organs.
In the previous article I wrote about consumption-based emissions and investment emissions. Here I want to turn to production and then to systems emissions.
I find it intriguing that there is so much discussion about emissions and climate justice from a consumption perspective and so little from a production perspective. I guess it has to do with the notion that consumers, in some magical way, are in control of the system. This myth is nurtured by capitalist ideology* as it gives the market economy a pseudo-democratic cloak.
It is the production, stupid
I argued that it is a bit strange to allocate the emission of an oil company to the shareholders, as shareholders, if anything, extract money from the companies they own shares of. It is perhaps more logical to allocate emissions to the companies themselves. Just 100 companies caused more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions between 1988 and 2016, according to a report published 2017. I haven’t looked into the detail, but it is not very surprising. These huge companies also had joint revenues of 18,000 billion US dollars 2023, i.e. 17% of the global GDP. But it is really “fair” to blame a steel mill for all the emissions from its steel manufacturing? Perhaps, but then how would the world look like without steel?
What about the steel workers and the oil drilling crews? How come there is such a focus on what people spend in their role as consumers and so little in their role as producers. Are we less responsible for “our” production emissions than for out consumption emissions, if so why? Are you not responsible for what you do in your job? “I just did my job” sounds like the classic excuse for torturers or perpetrators of war crimes or genocide?
While it is very efficient per ton-km, shipping still consumes a lot of energy. One single large container ship can use 200 ton of diesel per day and it is managed by a crew of 20. This means that the yearly use of diesel by the sailor, assuming 200 days of work is 2,000 ton, corresponding to more than 5,000 tons of CO2 just in direct emissions from combustion. In addition to that, the whole fuel chain from well extraction to use also cause emission, so the total emission by each sailor is closer to 6,000 ton CO2, not even counting all the emissions embedded in the ship, harbor infrastructure etc. This is more than the emission of 1,500 Swedes or 10,000 Ghanaians, by one single person.
The (fossil) energy needed to grow corn in Ontario, included the energy embedded in fertilizers and drying apart from obvious use such as for machinery, was estimated, by a team of Canadian scientists, to around 2 GJ per ton. It means that the energy use for 1 ton of corn corresponds to the energy of 44 liters of oil. An industrial farmer can farm some 400 hectares per man-year of labor and produce 4,000 ton corn on that land, with a total energy use of about 175,000 liters of oil. In turn, this corresponds to the energy needed to feed 5,000 people alive or the energy of 25,000 persons’ hard work.** The total emissions of this, including also nitrous oxide from fertilizer production and use, will amount to 1,200 ton of CO2 equivalents.
If we compare an industrial farm in the North with a smallholder in the South, we can note that the smallholder farmers have almost no emissions from their production and only manage to produce a ton of corn or so. Essentially, the human body of a smallholder in the South competes with many thousand persons’ work embedded in fossil fuels. It is obviously totally impossible for the manual farmer to compete with this, even with diesel prices reaching 2 dollars per liter (the price level in Sweden just a year ago). I find this perspective of energy fairness or justice to be more interesting and relevant than the “climate justice” perspective of consumption based emissions. It also show how extremely hollow the notion is that free trade in some way also is fair and just, common among neoliberal believers but not by their priests.
It is the Global Economy, stupid
From a systems perspective, once can question all these efforts to allocate emissions or blame between individuals and between countries. The economy is a network where all parts (well most parts) need each other. One would not blame the lungs for their carbon dioxide emission or the guts for our effluent of nutrients as we understand that the organs of the body have different roles and all are needed. So, why would it make sense for the human superorganism called “the economy”?
If you swap money for work with a cleaner you are not only paying for the cleaning, you are also paying for a part of that persons livelihood and consumption as s/he needs a place to live, food, clothing etc., in order to deliver the cleaning service you pay for. In addition, you probably got the money you pay, from the productive activities you are involved in (the work you do, the job you have). In that way the cleaner also shares in your impacts.
In a networked economy with division of labor we all share in each other’s impacts.
Another example: You have a mortgage loan for your house and you pay rent to a bank. The transaction itself has a minor impact on the environment. The payment of the rent means that your own consumption “space” is reduced. Meanwhile, some of the rent you pay will go to the salaries of bank staff and their offices, some to the shareholders and some will be used in the economy at large, for another person buying a car, for investment in new production or for a holiday trip to the Caribbean. The rent you have paid thus cause a cascade of effects and emissions. Over time and in average, the emission of those dollars, euros, rupiahs or yuans will correspond to the emission intensity of the economy.
As national economies are also in close connection with each other, it will – ultimately – be the average global emission intensity of the economy that will be the emission of your rent or any other expenditure you have, including the taxes you pay. Currently the global carbon dioxide intensity stands at 0.26 kg CO2 per US dollar of GDP. If your brutto salary is 50,000 dollars per year your share of global emissions would be 13 ton. In reality, if you earn 50,000 dollars, the added value of your work, i.e. the contribution to the global GDP is more likely to be somewhere between 60,000 and 70,000 dollars as your work also pays for investments as well as the profits generated in the company.
I speak here about carbon dioxide emissions, but one could make a similar case for biodiversity loss or other environmental impacts of a global magnitude.
A side note: It has always struck me as peculiar that the dominating method for assessing environmental impacts of various products (LCA) doesn’t include the people doing to job. But of course, as I demonstrated above it becomes virtually impossible to disentangle. Technocrats don’t like impossible methods, they like methods that generate figures, even if the figures are severely distorted.
On a systems level – or rather the Global Economy level – the task is simply to reduce the emission intensity and/or to shrink the economy. Both at the same time seems to be the only realistic option. Clearly, this can’t happen within the capitalist framework so an important part of the solution would be to decommodify the sectors most critical for human wellbeing. There are of course a lot of devilish details also in this proposition, but I leave that for now.
On a personal level, it seems to me that decoupling yourself from the global economy or substantially reducing your income, by working less, less efficiently or earning less, is the only way you can fully “take responsibility” for your emissions. Mind you, to reduce your spending and save money will make no difference as what you save will be used in the economy, unless you “retire” the money (which is one of the alternative economic ideas I believe it is worth looking into). To keep on producing the same will also not work as all that is produced also has to be consumed. Having said that, I still think there is a point in avoiding flying, saving energy, buying organic and buying less stuff. It contributes to a reduction in the average emission intensity and it gives you a certain peace of mind.
* I find it quite strange that capitalism is mostly discussed as an economic system and not as an ideology (while socialism or communism mostly are considered to be both). It adds to the narrative of capitalism being a natural system, or the only system, which in itself is an expression of an ideology.
** There are many versions and calculations of the number of “energy slaves” that are embedded in the energy resources we use. Apart from my own calculations linked in the text, this exercise by Jason Heppenstall is interesting. I believe that the exact figure is not particularly interesting, but the magnitude is.
No comments:
Post a Comment