Tool to counter climate change

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: Brazil and Peru had in 2007 proposed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that biofuels and organic foods be classified as “environmental goods,” thereby qualifying the two countries for deep tariff cuts. This proposal prompted an outcry from the United States, the European Union and other members of the WTO, once again placing the environment at the forefront of the Doha Development Agenda. Many have now been compelled to ask: What does this development mean for the future of Doha? One of Doha’s nine negotiating groups is trade and the environment, and one of its key components is the elimination of trade barriers for environment-related goods and services.

“By negotiating reduced barriers to trade in environmental goods, we are attempting to make these goods cheaper and more readily available to increase the trade in this department,” said Keith Rockwell, chief spokesperson for the WTO.

However, the complexities lie in where to draw the line between environmental and non-environmental goods. “The Japanese say that their washing machines are very efficient in the use of water, so is that an environmental good?” asked Rockwell. “Qataris say that natural gas gives off fewer CO2 emissions than petroleum, so that should be an environmental product as well.”

As the debate pits Brazil and Peru against other WTO members, the question remains: Where to draw the line in determining an environmental good?

Despite the undeniable environmental benefits of ethanol and other biofuels, countries such as the US, the European Union nations and Korea posit that only industrial goods, not farm products, should be considered when assigning the favourable status of “environmental product.” Brazil, on the other hand, responded to critics calling its proposal a means of reconciling the persistent divisions between the WTO members about how to integrate the mandatory component of Doha on trade barriers and environmental goods.

The paradox of reducing trade barriers, however, lies in the increased carbon emissions from the cars, boats and planes needed to ship goods internationally. Approximately one quarter of the world’s energy-related output of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is attributed to the transport sector. Fresh strawberries are out of season during the winter in the US and Britain, yet transporting these fruits from a country such as Kenya would produce substantial CO2 emissions.

Critics say that the goal should not be solely to increase access to environmentally friendly products, but to ensure that they are actually put to use. Yet some, like Rockwell, believe the benefits are worth it.

“Trade is the efficient allocation of resources,” he explained. “If every country had to make all of the things it consumes, we would have a disastrous situation. For all the concern about food miles, this is what the whole principle of comparative advantage is about. At the end of the day, you are producing wealth while ensuring access to such things as solar panels and wind turbines that help fight climate change.”

Also crucial to increasing trade in energy and environmental goods is the other main component of Doha’s environmental agenda — the coordination of trade policies with environmental policies. While the prevalence of trade-distorting subsidies has left many in the developing world impoverished, with farmers unable to compete with the artificially low market prices of imported goods, subsidies have also adversely affected the environment.

“The key point in coordinating environmental and trade policies is to ensure that they really are environmental measures and not protectionist tactics,” said Rockwell. “Governments will employ standards which may not necessarily be for the protection of consumers or the environment, but are merely designed to protect the welfare of domestic farmers, or whatever industry it may be.”

A case in point is fishing subsidies. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that nearly 70% of the world’s fishing revenues come from direct governmental support, as the global fishing supply has dramatically dwindled in the process. Governments and communities, many believe, must accept sacrifices in order to join the fight against global climate change. Critics say that international institutions such as the WTO must not solely advance the age-old paradigms of economic growth, but must also create new frameworks that prioritise environmental progress.

Though all governments have opened their eyes to the menace of increasing carbon emission levels, rapid increase in the production of waste, destruction of natural habitats and many such problems that have cropped up with growth and development, they are yet to reach a consensus on each country’s share of responsibility in mitigating the issues.

As the per capita emission levels of developed countries like USA, Canada and Australia are high, they are mandated by the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions (based on figures in the year 1990) at higher percentages — more than 90% in all cases — which in turn became unacceptable to these countries.

Developing countries like India, while clamouring for a per capita method of calculation of emission levels, has already taken up initiatives in Clean Development Mechanism on a large scale. Ensuring equity among its masses while implementing sustainable development programmes, working out ways for financing of clean technology and foreseeing and avoiding various pitfalls in the transferring and implementation of clean technology are the challenges faced by the country in the current scenario.