It seems grossly unfair that cities of the Global North continue extravagant consumption of resources, while claiming to be ‘carbon neutral’, when many in the South lack the basics of life. Can responsibilities for reducing resource consumption and carbon be allocated and shared more equitably?
Prof Walter Stahel wrote in 2008: “The present Global Climate Change discussion is limited to reducing CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels. This approach neglects the fact that reducing resource consumption always reduces CO2 emissions”, adding that the key issue at stake was unbalanced consumption on a global level, “an issue of global ethics.” In this regard, the International Resource Panel (2014) promoted “equal access to and/or attribution of resource consumption on a per capita basis", recognising that countries within the Global South should achieve a rising share of global resources while those of the North should dramatically lower their absolute levels of consumption. The Factor 10 Club, founded in 1994, argued that the South should be able to double its resource use within 50 years, while the North should reduce consumption by Factor 10 (around 90%) – described by the WWF as ‘shrink and share’.
The UN Clean Development Mechanism provides a means of cooperation between countries to reduce emissions, whereby developed countries may offset their emissions by undertaking carbon abatement projects and programs in the developing world. At COP 25, means of extending this scheme were proposed, including voluntary cooperation between countries of the North and South and private sector involvement. Such activities must drive sustainable development, benefit local communities in an inclusive way, and reduce emissions. However, present accounting of emissions is narrowly focused on operating and territorial carbon, enabling cities of the North to claim they are ‘carbon-neutral’ – because they have outsourced production (including emissions and resource consumption) to the South. Accounting for such ‘consumption-based emissions’, estimated to be 60% greater than under the present system (C40 Cities 2018), would enable responsibility to be sheeted home to the final consumers, of whom 80% reside in the developed world.
So I should be grateful for your comments on the following questions:
a) Looking to COP 26, could both shrinking and sharing of resources and emissions be incorporated in extended CDM cooperation between North and South?
b) Could such a scheme be supported by accounting of consumption-based emissions?
I endeavoured to ‘set the ball rolling’ in my recent article. Thank you!
https://emeraldopenresearch.com/articles/2-2/v3
Thank you Walter R Stahel, I don't expect there to be clear answer. Rather, I am seeking to stimulate discussion on this topic that seems to receive inadequate attention.
Question was also prompted by Reviewers' comments on my article (link in Question). It had argued the Global North needs to reduce growth in new building floor area/building stock to attain net zero carbon, without fully addressing distributional and sustainability implications for the fast growing South.
Am safe thanks as C-19 seems to be under control in wealthy Australia. But again, many in disadvantaged South lack medical treatment, space, and basic resources/amenities e.g. taps to wash hands.
I think, now, during and after coronavirus crisis, another paradigm - of self-sufficiency of the states and limited trade has to be discussed and implemented to a certain extent.
That self-sufficiency paradigm seems to be attracting attention Arvydas Guogis , thanks for raising. And 'intelligent localisation' is advocated as key to a circular economy. However, there may be 'downside' for developing countries due to loss of export income and jobs. This is dealt with by Patrick M. Schroeder
in Chatham House publication 'Promoting a just transition to an inclusive circular economy' (April 2020).
And self-sufficiency will be developing alongside with the rise of moderate nationalism, which in the present circumstances will not bear such bad stigma, as the extreme right ideology and practise.
In considering the Question, we may need to go 'Back to the Future'. Namely, to the pioneering research of the Factor 10 Club, led by Prof Friedrich-Schmidt-Bleek, that began around the mid-1990s. www.factor10-institute.org.
This included luminaries such as Robert Ayres, Herman Daly, Walter Stahel, and Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker.
Please find attached some pertinent extracts from 'MIPS; The Fossil Makers' written by Schmidt-Bleek 1993.
I believe we can effectively and positively shrink and share resources by following disciplined standards of equality, justice, freedom of work, and production away from acquisition policies and the deliberate harm of other producers, countries or companies.
This is a key question that many degrowth and post-development thinkers from the Global North and South alike have sought to answer. Overall, it will require more than simply redesigning production, consumption or accounting models within current climate agreements and systemic structures. Indeed, solving this issue necessitates a paradigm shift and a lifestyle transformation towards "frugally abundant" and convivial forms of life. This entails moving beyond capitalism and building an entirely new system based on solidarity, care and harmony with the earth. Degrowth and post-development thinkers have been asking theses questions since the 1970s and have sought inspiration from a plurality of alternative visions from the Global North and South alike such as Buen Vivir, Ubuntu, Gandhian Economics, Ecological Swaraj etc. I highly recommend the two following books, which bring invaluable insights towards answering your question:
Book "Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary" (AUF, 2019). NEW...
Book DEGROWTH: A Vocabulary for a New Era (E-BOOK)
Thank you Martin for your deep and helpful insights, also the recommended reading. I was aware of some of degrowth literature and the 'Vocabulary', but not 'Pluraliverse'. Yes, articles such as 'Undeveloping the North' by Aram Ziai, the foreword by Wolfgang Sachs and more, go a long way towards answering the Question.
a) Yes ...at least we should settle the current carbon debt originating from this unjust use of common resources Article How to Proceed After Copenhagen
Thank you Jan Kunnas and for your very thought provoking article.
I will read more carefully and encourage others to read too
'Beyond Circularity - Do we need to shrink and share?' published by Circular Conversations today
https://www.circularconversations.com/research-challenges/beyond-circularity-do-we-need-to-shrink-and-share
Yes: Shrink - share - and compensate, shrink current consumption, share remaining resources and compensate for past overuse of common resources including the carrying capacity of the atmosphere (carbon debt).
I presented on this topic at online Workshop 'Social and Cultural Aspects of Circular Economy, 19-20 Nov, 2020, Helsinki.
I recommend everybody to read David's contributions to this dialogue
Interesting and insightful presentation of the "shrink and share" challenge that humanity faces. Yet, I think the solution of carbon pricing and carbon budgets will not be enough considering the scale of the problem and the extent of "shrinking" and "sharing" that is needed to remain within the biophisical boundaries of the earth while ensuring well-being for all. Many more policies that lead to a fair, democratic and sustainable future are needed. I discuss some of those policies and solutions in this article: https://www.circularconversations.com/research-series-young-researchers/the-circular-economy-transformative-vision-or-oxymoronic-illusion
That's a very pertinent question, David Ness . And I agree with Martin Calisto Friant , because it will require cultural changes, lifestyle and economic models that do not agree with the proposal and the model imposed by capitalism. Solidarity between peoples, respect and harmonious coexistence with nature must guide our choices and paths. This is if we want to find a solution to the crises that future generations will face if we continue to allow the indiscriminate and irresponsible consumption of the planet's resources by a small portion of economic power.
Thank you Wellyngton Chaves Monteiro da Silva I entirely agree with you and also Martin Calisto Friant. In this, your research on educational policies aimed at formation and emancipation of citizens with a view to social transformation is vitally important. Unlike South America, my part of the world seems to lack passion and recognition of the need for such a dramatic transformation in lifestyles and consumption patterns, towards fair distribution of resources and wealth. But education can light a fire that will change hearts and minds.
You are rigth, David Ness. Education can change hearts and minds. Let us continue in our struggle that has in education the largest and most effective instrument of social transformation.
Still seeking to answer this Question, I have just posted my presentation on 'Consumption Disparity: The Elephant in the COP26 Room' on Researchgate, and welcome any further comments.
Presentation CONSUMPTION DISPARITY - The Elephant in the COP26 Room Talk ...
- Badges
- Science topic