7 ms·

Moving industry offshore not only simply moved emissions around, it made things worse by adding aviation and shipping. And to make things even worse, emissions

Moving industry offshore not only simply moved emissions around, it made things worse by adding aviation and shipping. And to make things even worse, emissions from aviation and shipping are not attributed to any specific country. Talk about creative accounting.

paranoidrobot 6y ago
Moving things offshore can in some cases result in lower emissions. For instance, it can be that the UK buying produce from warmer countries is lower emissions in total, because to grow much of it in the UK would require heated+lit greenhouses.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  This may sound good, but it's only meaningful if you'd put that into a larger context. For instance, tomatoes: "Our results show that imported tomatoes from Spain and Italy have two times lower greenhouse gas emissions than those produced in Austria in capital-intensive heated systems. On the contrary, tomatoes from Spain and Italy were found to have 3.7 to 4.7 times higher greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to less-intensive organic production systems in Austria. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions from tomato production highly depend on the production system such as the prevalence or absence of heating." [1] [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8 It's the second part that it's important here. It doesn't really matter where tomatoes are grown: Italy, Spain or Austria. In absolute terms, tomatoes production still results in far more carbon emissions then less-intensive produce. Moreover, you have to compound those emission numbers with consumption numbers. Tomatoes are a basically a staple food in the Western world. Massive amounts are produced and consumed. This is why the consumer price per unit is basically pennies at the counter. The offset of that is, in absolute terms, a massive carbon footprint. If hundreds of thousands of tons of tomatoes are shipped by airplane or freightship across the world anually, that still translates into big emissions. In order to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way, the entire life cycle of the product in your shopping bag should be weaned off fossil fuel use in an absolute terms. This isn't an easy exercise: "The results show that the largest reduction of environmental impacts can be achieved by consuming seasonal fruits and vegetables, followed by reduction of transport by airplane. Sourcing fruits and vegetables locally is only a good strategy to reduce the carbon footprint if no greenhouse heating with fossil fuels is involved. The impact of water consumption depends on the location of agricultural production. For some crops a trade-off between the carbon footprint and the induced water stress is observed." [2] [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394405/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394405/
  - bosie 6y ago
    > In absolute terms, tomatoes production still results in far more carbon emissions then less-intensive produce. That's not what your quoted article says though? Not that I doubt it but the quote talks about different methods for producing tomatoes, not how different produces have different grenhouse emissions during production.
    - Retric 6y ago
      These differences extend to every crop making crop specific numbers more an average than reality. Lettuce grown indoors for example has an extreme carbon footprint from the lighting which would make imported tomatoes a better option.
      - bosie 6y ago
        Sure but that is the problem of the growth method rather than the type of produce. The claim was (might have misread it) that the produce itself has a massive difference all things being equal
perfunctory 6y ago
Also I believe this analysis neglects capital investments. Say British pension fund invests in coal plant in India.
- Reason077 6y ago
  UK's biggest pension fund begins fossil fuels divestment: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/national-employment-savings-trust-uks-biggest-pension-fund-divests-from-fossil-fuels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/national...
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    However: the UK government is also directly financing, through UK Export Finance (UKEF), a whole lot of fossil fuel developments, though.[0] UKEF has ploughed more than £6 billion into fossil fuel companies in the last 10 years, which will produce 69 million tons of CO2 per year, or 1/6th of the UK's current output.[1] [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51216084 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51216084 [1] https://environmentjournal.online/articles/uk-government-has-invested-60bn-into-overseas-fossil-fuel-projects/ https://environmentjournal.online/articles/uk-government-has...
    - Reason077 6y ago
      I believe there has recently been a ban on UK government funds financing any coal mining or coal power plant projects. But yes, it's certainly a scandal that this went on for so long, and the ban has yet to be extended to other forms of fossil fuel.
raxxorrax 6y ago
It could also prove prudent to not burn heavy oil and demand cleaner fuel. Not perfect, but it would certainly be better. It would have a serious impact on the economics of logistics but maybe that wouldn't be bad too.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  Don’t you have to produce the heavier stuff when you produce the lighter stuff in a column? It’s my understanding that when you separate crude you end up with proportions you don’t have a lot of control over.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    Most hydrocarbons are produced via cracking the molecules into the desired length. You can modify your refinery to get the right ratios that the market demands out of a barrel of crude.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Reason077 6y ago
> ”And to make things even worse, emissions from aviation and shipping are not attributed to any specific country.” Why not divide the emissions from air and shipping routes between the origin and destination countries? Slightly more complex for shipping, perhaps, where ships may stop and load/unload cargo at multiple points along a route. And it would be unfair to penalise countries with large ports when much of the cargo they handle is being shipped onward to other destinations. But I’m sure these issues could be figured out.
- quicklime 6y ago
  > And it would be unfair to penalise countries with large ports when much of the cargo they handle is being shipped onward to other destinations. This takes us back to the point of the top-level comment, but I think it's also unfair to penalize countries with large factories, when much of the manufacturing output is being shipped to other destinations. Carbon should be attributed back to the consumers that paid for it to be emitted, not the place where it was emitted. This is what a carbon tax would achieve, as companies would pass the tax on to consumers, who ultimately drive all this manufacturing activity. The Brits don't get a free pass just because they paid people in poorer countries to emit carbon for them.
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    It seems fair to attribute ambitions to the country where they are physically made, because that’s the country regulating those emissions. If you don’t, you’re incentivizing a country to have lax emissions regulations by letting their choices impact someone else’s accounting.
    - quicklime 6y ago
      I disagree that would be fair, and it certainly wouldn't achieve a good result. If emissions are attributed the country where they are physically made, then it incentivizes rich countries to offshore all their manufacturing to poor countries - which is exactly what's happened here in the case of Britain. If the choice is between poverty and low emissions, of course developing nations are going to have lax regulations.
markvdb 6y ago
Is there any actual form of proper CO² emissions accounting worldwide? There's something limited within the EU, but otherwise?
- bregma 6y ago
  Mere facts would interfere with political positioning.
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    This is not a productive comment and does not add to the conversation. If you have information to add, please add it.
melling 6y ago
Plus, China for example, uses a lot of coal in their industry. They make almost half of the world’s steel.
kingkawn 6y ago
Recipient markets should bear financial responsibility for pollution generated
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  Doesn’t that incentivize every least developed country to create dirty industry?
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    That's only if the dirty industry is strictly for domestic use. If they export to countries that impose carbon taxes on end users, dirtier processes will make their exports less price competitive. That encourages producers to invest in cleaner energy for energy intensive goods. It really doesn't matter whether the tax is collected at the export-producing end or the import-consuming end as long as it provides the same price signal.
heimatau 6y ago
> it made things worse by adding aviation and shipping...Talk about creative accounting. I'm glad someone else recognizes it. I'm not a massive proponent of 'local manufacturing' because there are efficiencies to be had letting others build their skills in something that you might not want to focus on. Regardless, I do think that the public's debate about this should be framed with your post (perfunctory), so that we can wrestle with all the unintended consequences and we can make those important decisions as an informed public. P.S. This goes for any country. Not just Britain, hence I didn't mention Britain in my post. Ultimately, I'm just glad others see the shady 'facts' that deceive the public.
__Joker 6y ago
Will specializing in production and optimized global supply chains would have any effect of neutering the above concern(or may be net win altogether ) ?
epanchin 6y ago
Raw materials were already being shipped in. I imagine there was more waste from industry than there were British raw materials being used. So moving industry offshore should result in a reduction in shipping. Provided it’s being moved to source of the raw materials. Which, I imagine, is often not the case.

paranoidrobot 6y ago

Moving things offshore can in some cases result in lower emissions. For instance, it can be that the UK buying produce from warmer countries is lower emissions in total, because to grow much of it in the UK would require heated+lit greenhouses.

CaptArmchair 6y ago
This may sound good, but it's only meaningful if you'd put that into a larger context. For instance, tomatoes: "Our results show that imported tomatoes from Spain and Italy have two times lower greenhouse gas emissions than those produced in Austria in capital-intensive heated systems. On the contrary, tomatoes from Spain and Italy were found to have 3.7 to 4.7 times higher greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to less-intensive organic production systems in Austria. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions from tomato production highly depend on the production system such as the prevalence or absence of heating." [1] [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8 It's the second part that it's important here. It doesn't really matter where tomatoes are grown: Italy, Spain or Austria. In absolute terms, tomatoes production still results in far more carbon emissions then less-intensive produce. Moreover, you have to compound those emission numbers with consumption numbers. Tomatoes are a basically a staple food in the Western world. Massive amounts are produced and consumed. This is why the consumer price per unit is basically pennies at the counter. The offset of that is, in absolute terms, a massive carbon footprint. If hundreds of thousands of tons of tomatoes are shipped by airplane or freightship across the world anually, that still translates into big emissions. In order to reduce carbon emissions in a meaningful way, the entire life cycle of the product in your shopping bag should be weaned off fossil fuel use in an absolute terms. This isn't an easy exercise: "The results show that the largest reduction of environmental impacts can be achieved by consuming seasonal fruits and vegetables, followed by reduction of transport by airplane. Sourcing fruits and vegetables locally is only a good strategy to reduce the carbon footprint if no greenhouse heating with fossil fuels is involved. The impact of water consumption depends on the location of agricultural production. For some crops a trade-off between the carbon footprint and the induced water stress is observed." [2] [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394405/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394405/
- bosie 6y ago
  > In absolute terms, tomatoes production still results in far more carbon emissions then less-intensive produce. That's not what your quoted article says though? Not that I doubt it but the quote talks about different methods for producing tomatoes, not how different produces have different grenhouse emissions during production.
  - Retric 6y ago
    These differences extend to every crop making crop specific numbers more an average than reality. Lettuce grown indoors for example has an extreme carbon footprint from the lighting which would make imported tomatoes a better option.
    - bosie 6y ago
      Sure but that is the problem of the growth method rather than the type of produce. The claim was (might have misread it) that the produce itself has a massive difference all things being equal

perfunctory 6y ago

Also I believe this analysis neglects capital investments. Say British pension fund invests in coal plant in India.

Reason077 6y ago
UK's biggest pension fund begins fossil fuels divestment: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/national-employment-savings-trust-uks-biggest-pension-fund-divests-from-fossil-fuels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/national...
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  However: the UK government is also directly financing, through UK Export Finance (UKEF), a whole lot of fossil fuel developments, though.[0] UKEF has ploughed more than £6 billion into fossil fuel companies in the last 10 years, which will produce 69 million tons of CO2 per year, or 1/6th of the UK's current output.[1] [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51216084 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51216084 [1] https://environmentjournal.online/articles/uk-government-has-invested-60bn-into-overseas-fossil-fuel-projects/ https://environmentjournal.online/articles/uk-government-has...
  - Reason077 6y ago
    I believe there has recently been a ban on UK government funds financing any coal mining or coal power plant projects. But yes, it's certainly a scandal that this went on for so long, and the ban has yet to be extended to other forms of fossil fuel.

raxxorrax 6y ago

It could also prove prudent to not burn heavy oil and demand cleaner fuel. Not perfect, but it would certainly be better. It would have a serious impact on the economics of logistics but maybe that wouldn't be bad too.

Schiendelman 6y ago
Don’t you have to produce the heavier stuff when you produce the lighter stuff in a column? It’s my understanding that when you separate crude you end up with proportions you don’t have a lot of control over.
- selectodude 6y ago
  Most hydrocarbons are produced via cracking the molecules into the desired length. You can modify your refinery to get the right ratios that the market demands out of a barrel of crude.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Reason077 6y ago

> ”And to make things even worse, emissions from aviation and shipping are not attributed to any specific country.” Why not divide the emissions from air and shipping routes between the origin and destination countries? Slightly more complex for shipping, perhaps, where ships may stop and load/unload cargo at multiple points along a route. And it would be unfair to penalise countries with large ports when much of the cargo they handle is being shipped onward to other destinations. But I’m sure these issues could be figured out.

quicklime 6y ago
> And it would be unfair to penalise countries with large ports when much of the cargo they handle is being shipped onward to other destinations. This takes us back to the point of the top-level comment, but I think it's also unfair to penalize countries with large factories, when much of the manufacturing output is being shipped to other destinations. Carbon should be attributed back to the consumers that paid for it to be emitted, not the place where it was emitted. This is what a carbon tax would achieve, as companies would pass the tax on to consumers, who ultimately drive all this manufacturing activity. The Brits don't get a free pass just because they paid people in poorer countries to emit carbon for them.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  It seems fair to attribute ambitions to the country where they are physically made, because that’s the country regulating those emissions. If you don’t, you’re incentivizing a country to have lax emissions regulations by letting their choices impact someone else’s accounting.
  - quicklime 6y ago
    I disagree that would be fair, and it certainly wouldn't achieve a good result. If emissions are attributed the country where they are physically made, then it incentivizes rich countries to offshore all their manufacturing to poor countries - which is exactly what's happened here in the case of Britain. If the choice is between poverty and low emissions, of course developing nations are going to have lax regulations.

markvdb 6y ago

Is there any actual form of proper CO² emissions accounting worldwide? There's something limited within the EU, but otherwise?

bregma 6y ago
Mere facts would interfere with political positioning.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  This is not a productive comment and does not add to the conversation. If you have information to add, please add it.

melling 6y ago

Plus, China for example, uses a lot of coal in their industry. They make almost half of the world’s steel.

kingkawn 6y ago

Recipient markets should bear financial responsibility for pollution generated

Schiendelman 6y ago
Doesn’t that incentivize every least developed country to create dirty industry?
- philipkglass 6y ago
  That's only if the dirty industry is strictly for domestic use. If they export to countries that impose carbon taxes on end users, dirtier processes will make their exports less price competitive. That encourages producers to invest in cleaner energy for energy intensive goods. It really doesn't matter whether the tax is collected at the export-producing end or the import-consuming end as long as it provides the same price signal.

heimatau 6y ago

> it made things worse by adding aviation and shipping...Talk about creative accounting. I'm glad someone else recognizes it. I'm not a massive proponent of 'local manufacturing' because there are efficiencies to be had letting others build their skills in something that you might not want to focus on. Regardless, I do think that the public's debate about this should be framed with your post (perfunctory), so that we can wrestle with all the unintended consequences and we can make those important decisions as an informed public. P.S. This goes for any country. Not just Britain, hence I didn't mention Britain in my post. Ultimately, I'm just glad others see the shady 'facts' that deceive the public.

__Joker 6y ago

Will specializing in production and optimized global supply chains would have any effect of neutering the above concern(or may be net win altogether ) ?

epanchin 6y ago

Raw materials were already being shipped in. I imagine there was more waste from industry than there were British raw materials being used. So moving industry offshore should result in a reduction in shipping. Provided it’s being moved to source of the raw materials. Which, I imagine, is often not the case.