The Great Net Zero Green-Washing Deception: A Path to Oblivion

"Net Zero" has become the new buzzword for setting emission targets. Countries and corporations alike have set net zero emission targets to convince us that they are "doing their part" to reduce global emissions. But what is net zero exactly? Are they really doing their part? What, exactly, is the difference between net zero and zero emissions? Instead of reducing emissions to zero, with net zero one can buy a license to emit through the purchase of carbon offsets. But this leads us to the next question: What are carbon offsets?

Carbon offsets are devices that capture and sequester carbon. Some offsets are biological, some are technological. The former includes things like forests, wetlands, peat reserves, etc. These can be purchased and protected, locally or abroad, or created through reforestation and reclaiming of wetlands etc. 

Technological carbon offsets are ways of capturing carbon at the source of emission, or removing it from the atmosphere. The latter has not yet been achieved on a large scale, but is being invested in by corporations and countries on the assumption that they can developed in time for them to meet their net net zero emission targets. Theoretically captured carbon must somehow be sequestered in a way that it cannot be re-released into the atmosphere. This is usually done using deep underground deposits, often utilizing already depleted oil wells. 

The main problem with net zero emission targets is that they do little to discourage global consumption of fossil fuels; they only provide incentives to reduce those emissions emitted in a particular country or by a particular corporation. Fossil fuels extraction intended for export markets can continue unabated provided they exporters are, or assumed will be in possession of enough carbon offsets to offset emissions that occur as a result of extraction. This allows a corporation or country to meet its emission targets while continuing to extract fossil fuels for export, because it disregards emissions that occur after export. Once the fuels are out of their domain--once they have been exported to other end users--it is no longer the extractor's responsibility; it is the purchasers who must account for those emissions. Net zero emissions are extremely attractive to fossil fuel exporting countries and corporations. Exxon Mobile is one example of this: 

The plant’s main function is to process natural gas from a nearby deposit. But in order to purify and sell the gas, Exxon must first strip out carbon dioxide, which comprises about two-thirds of the mix of gases extracted from nearby wells.

The company found a revenue stream for this otherwise useless, climate-warming byproduct: It began capturing the CO2 and selling it to other companies, which injected it into depleted oil fields to help produce more oil.

--Inside Climate News

Oil companies have found a way, not only to meet their net zero emission targets, but to make a handsome profit while they're at it by cashing in on generous government subsidies for emission reductions,  while also selling the carbon they've captured to smaller companies who pump it into depleted wells to extract even more oil! This double-dipping actually increases global fossil fuel consumption rather than reducing it.  

The oil industry is not the only one to use deceptive accounting methods. Banks, for instance, can set a few solar panels on the roof and maybe hook up a couple of other alternative energy sources, and then claim to be carbon neutral, while their huge loans to fossil fuel industries continue uninterrupted. Net zero targets take the onus for emission reductions off of the fossil fuel and other industries in possession of carbon offsets, and externalizes  responsibility for these emissions to countries who import fossil fuels, in much the same way that industry is outsourced to overseas supply chains to reduce labour costs, avoid taxes, worker protection laws, and local environmental standards, etc. 

The problem with this nationalistic approach is that global warming is a global phenomenon. Corporations and nation states externalizing the cost of carbon emissions is not going to reduce global emissions. We all live on the same planet. And countries that must import fossil fuels and sell off their own carbon offsets--forests, wetlands, etc.-- are usually less able to bear the costs of transitioning to cleaner renewable energy than the countries they import the fuel from. Similarly, large oil producers are selling off their most carbon intensive operations to smaller wholly-owned private operators who do not trade on the stock market and are therefore not subjected to same scrutiny and regulations. Furthermore, divesting themselves of carbon intensive holdings qualifies these large global operators for huge government subsidies as a reward for "reducing" their carbon emissions:

 

Exxon Touts Carbon Capture as a Climate Fix, but Uses It to Maximize Profit and Keep Oil Flowing

The company sells the CO2 to other companies that use it to revive depleted oil fields and has relentlessly fought EPA oversight of the practice.

In 2008, when concerns about climate change led Congress to pass a tax credit meant to encourage companies to capture and store carbon dioxide, Exxon was presented with another way to make money from the technology. The massive amounts of carbon dioxide captured at its Wyoming facility put the oil and gas giant in a position to claim more credits under the tax break than any other company.

In the ensuing years, Exxon may have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits, according to estimates based on publicly available data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a global think tank that tracks the technology.

--Inside Climate News

So, as we can see, Net Zero targets are a clever and useful way of accounting for, or, more precisely, not accounting for carbon emissions. Consequently those who want to appear serious about reducing their carbon emissions may in reality be doing little if anything at all to reduce global emissions. Are there better ways of measuring, accounting for, and reducing fossil fuel emissions? Ways of more accurately measuring a country's global carbon footprint and setting emissions targets accordingly? Yes, there certainly are!

A big part of the problem is that instead of recognizing and naming climate change as a cost of production, the cost has been externalized. Wealthy and fossil fuel producing nations are using net zero targets, not as a way of reducing global emissions, but rather transferring responsibility for existing emissions onto poorer countries and pretending that this somehow will reduce global emissions. It won't. Just as offshoring production is used to reduce the cost of labour, so too offshoring responsibility for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel producers to fossil fuel consumers obfuscates the true cost of extraction. The former will reduce the cost of labour for production, while the latter will reduce the cost of fossil fuel extraction by transferring responsibility for emissions from sellers to buyers. Offshoring production costs does not reduce the global amount of labour required to produce a commodity; it may increase it if reduced labour costs forestall automation. So too, offshoring fossil fuel extraction and consumption costs to end consumers does not reduce the total amount of global emissions. The consequences this faulty net zero accounting are largely borne by those least responsible for CO2 emissions, and those least able to afford it. By off-loading responsibility for emissions onto those least able to afford it, instead of reducing global emissions net zero targets actually increase emissions. 

Not only does this practice increase emissions; they constitute a grave injustice to those who suffer the consequences of global warming and climate change. If the car we are driving jumps the curb and kills innocent pedestrians we expect the driver to take responsibility, and insofar as compensation for damages the driver is liable. Why should it be any different for for the drivers of CO2 emissions?

The True Prohibitive Costs of Externalizing Production:

Off-shoring and out-sourcing production can result in significant savings. The cost of labour, including skilled labour, can often be obtained at a fraction of the price of what it would cost to feed and house a slave, never mind what it would cost to hire a worker locally. Out-sourcing production also allows investors to take advantage of economies of scale, in which manufacturers of components such as micro chips used in computers, cell phones, automobiles, etc. can be purchased much more cheaply than the costs of end-users manufacturing such components for themselves. Economies of scale also allow manufactures to purchase extracted raw materials in bulk at reduced prices. Furthermore, local environmental regulations are often prohibitive to manufacturing. For instance, things requiring the use of rare earth elements –cellular telephones, computer hard drives, electric and hybrid vehicles, flat-screen monitors and televisions, significant defence applications such as electronic displays, guidance systems, lasers, and radar and sonar systems—are primarily produced in China, not because rare earth itself is particularly rare, but because the process of extracting rare earth elements is so highly destructive to the environment –to water, crops, people and animals, etc.—that almost all rare-earth-derived products originate in China. Similarly, the cost of compliance with local regulations protecting worker safety, the safety of the buildings in which they work, etc. can also be externalized by out-sourcing or off-shoring production. Finally, by reinvesting profits in off-shore holdings corporations can avoid paying taxes in their home countries. Externalizing all these costs means that the cost paid by end consumers does not include or reflect the social and environmental costs borne by the citizens of the countries in which the goods they consume are produced.

The externalization of carbon emissions:

Another aspect of out-sourcing and off-shoring production is the externalization of carbon emissions. Under the status quo responsibility for carbon emissions that take place in another country are also externalized, and end consumers in wealthy countries escape responsibility and accountability, not only for any fossil fuels used in 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th country production processes, but also for the shipping of raw materials, components, and finished products.

This is further exacerbated by the purchase of carbon off-sets. Instead of a business or individual reducing their own carbon emissions, they can purchase the right to emit by enabling an equivalent emission-reducing activity somewhere else in the world. By purchasing or otherwise protecting enough jungle in Brazil or Indonesia, for instance, an individual or business wealthy enough to do so can claim to be carbon neutral without actually reducing their own emissions. This option is of course not available to poor people or poor countries who sell control over forests as off-sets to wealthier countries and businesses. The purchase of carbon-offsets may confer carbon neutrality on some wealthy emitters, but at the cost of increased global economic disparity.

Over-reliance on Global Supply Chains:

The current and on-going interruptions in supply chains are also due in large part to the externalizing production costs. The COVID 19 pandemic illuminated the global economies reliance on a highly complex global web of suppliers of raw materials, components, manufactures, end consumers, and the just-on-time-delivery of most of the above. In the early days of the pandemic this was manifest in the shortage of PPEs—masks and such—after borders were closed. Today factory closures due to poor distribution of vaccines and the resulting COVID outbreaks, interruptions in shipping and overland transport, a shortage in computer chips, etc. continue to impede a return to normal. Over-reliance on global supply chains intended to externalize and minimize production costs are no longer able to adequately supply existing demand. Just-in-time-delivery seems to be a thing of the past when it comes to everything from automobiles to refrigerators to Christmas gifts. Pivoting to this new reality requires a reconstruction of the dominant business model—something that is going to take considerable time.

Geopolitics is also playing a role. First the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration, see China as a major threat and adversary. However sanctions on China and tariffs on Chinese products also hurt US businesses and corporations, and will therefore be limited in scope. EU reliance on Russian gas is also providing Russia with the opportunity to limit access to Russian gas to further their political objectives. The degree to which a country can prioritize its political objectives over economic considerations depends to a considerable extent on how reliant its economy is on access to goods supplied by, and access to markets of their political adversaries. Western countries have allowed their economies to become particularly reliant on access to out-sourced goods and off-shore production.

Challenges:

Can Western countries successfully extricate themselves from their over-reliance on externalized production costs? Will their economies and social safety nets be able to withstand such a transition?

The greatest challenge of all is reducing global Greenhouse Gas emissions while allowing corporations to externalize the cost of cutting emissions to countries ill-equipped to reduce them. It is simply unrealistic to assume that the countries producing our consumer goods will willingly cut their emissions without compensation from the countries consuming the lion's share of the goods they produce. Yet the carbon emission reduction strategies and proposals of Western countries do not include incentives to induce developing and poor countries—the very countries to which they have externalized the costs of their high-consumption life-styles—to reduce their emissions. This while the countries least responsible but most affected, and least able to mitigate against the effects of extreme weather events—cyclones, floods, droughts, mudslides, etc.—bare the brunt of the burden, as climate refugees, along with economic and political refugees, are warehoused in concentration camps because the developed countries that once colonized don't want them, ostensibly because they are unvaccinated.

The reality is that an over-privileged few are benefiting from an unjust global supply chain and distribution of resources, while much of the cost of this economic development model is borne by those too powerless to do anything about it.

THE PLANET CANNOT BE SAVED WITHOUT GLOBAL REGIME CHANGE

All countries without exception are interlinked and interdependent in the global market place. This reality became starkly evident in the early days of this pandemic when more and more countries closed their borders, resulting in interruptions in supply chains that caused many factories to grind to a halt. Many countries had also outsourced the manufacture their own PPEs, and during border closures and lockdowns struggled to obtain enough PPEs to keep their populations and healthcare professionals safe. Indeed, most of what we consume is manufactured elsewhere, where the costs of production are considerably lower. Outsourcing production not only results in huge savings in labour costs; it also evades the much stricter environmental standards, workers rights, and workplace safety standards in place in much wealthier consumer nations. The raw materials and energy required for manufacture are also sourced from countries all over the world, from whichever country can supply the demand at the lowest cost. Almost every good we consume, from cell phones to clothes to automobiles to food, involves the coordinated actions of a complex global web of people from many countries around the world. Restrictions on the movement of goods and services are minimal, and efforts are being made to further reduce them through minimizing government intervention –through the promotion of what is called Free Trade. The remarkable thing is that for the most part it is self-regulating. For middle class and upper middle class this system has been working well, providing them with an ever increasing array of consumer goods at affordable prices. They most anxiously await the full recovery of this economic system in the wake of disruptions caused by the pandemic.

But can a self-regulating system, characterized by minimal government intervention, respond to that other even greater existential crisis –to global warming? Is it simply a matter of switching over to renewable energy so that economic growth can continue unabated without destroying the planet? Is national governments' “putting a price on pollution” and setting carbon emission reduction targets going to be enough? To date even significantly reducing carbon emissions within our borders has proved to be a challenge, especially for countries whose economies rely on the extraction and exportation of fossil fuels. Should countries and corporations be allowed to exempt themselves from lower emission requirements in exchange for buying up carbon syncs that presumably offset their emissions? (forests etc. known to sequester carbon) Externalizing production costs has become essential to compete in the global marketplace; only by outsourcing production to countries with grossly underpaid workers, often working in abysmal conditions, in countries with minimal or unenforced labour and environmental standards, can suppliers supply the insatiable appetites of consumers at competitive prices. The social and environmental costs will be borne by others in the countries that produce the goods we consume.

But due to the global nature of the climate crisis the cost of carbon emissions cannot be externalized. Reduction in global carbon emissions cannot be achieved without the cooperation of all the countries that supply the world's consumer goods. The refrain that “We are all in this together”, belied by the global distribution of vaccines, has to become much more than a euphemism if the worsening of the global climate apocalypse is to be avoided. Even countries that have managed to meet national carbon emissions targets within their borders are not doing their part if they continue to import consumer goods with a high carbon footprint. Emissions must be reduced everywhere in the chain of the production process, from the extraction and shipping of raw materials, to the processing of materials into metals, plastics, etc., to the fabrication and assembly of all components into the end products, and the shipping of all of the above. That's a lot of emissions that aren't accounted for in consumer prices, but nonetheless form part and parcel of emissions embodied in the goods we consume. To continue this pattern of consumption is to continue to participate in ecocide and self-annihilation, regardless of how many EVs we buy or solar panels we install. 

 

Can developing and newly industrialized countries be relied upon to voluntarily reduce their emissions in a way that not even most wealthy countries have thus far been willing to do? Can those stitching our clothes together, or working long hours in unsafe working conditions, earning a pittance insufficient to properly house or feed themselves, be expected set aside all immediate existential threats to themselves and their families and get on board with the climate agenda of a few rich nations? If they are not, will we encourage them by financing their transition to green energy? Or will we resort to some form of coercion? Without a pan-global government, who would do the coercing? The under-funded UN, in which five countries who almost never agree on anything have veto power, is not up to the task, much less the WHO, whose pleas for a more equitable distribution of vaccines continue to fall on deaf ears. If rich countries were to put tariffs on all goods imported from non-compliant countries, would that result in reduced emissions? Or would that only result in even more deplorable working conditions as suppliers try to keep up profits despite tariffs? What about an outright ban on such imports? But that would hurt compliant rich countries as well, because they would have to pay the full cost of production of consumer goods. All the externalized costs –the cheap labour, the lax or poor worker safety and environmental laws, etc. that made these imported goods so affordable--would then have to be added to the sales price. Citizens of rich nations would have to absorb, not only the costs of reducing their own emissions, but also the higher consumer prices required to pay for the transition to green energy in the countries producing these goods, resulting in inflation. Perhaps that is as it should be, since it is the citizens of rich nations that, because of their high levels of consumption, are primarily responsible for global warming. When we moved industry off shore we also moved their carbon emissions off shore, out of our national jurisdiction, but they still take place on the same planet. It is urgent that we take ownership of all emissions associated with the products we consume, including those being produced offshore.

To date even most relatively wealthy countries haven't done much to reduce emissions, despite the devastating impact of increasingly frequent extreme weather events. There are a number of reasons for this. Rich countries can deal with catastrophic weather events, and are becoming increasing adept at preventing economic, political and climate refugees from entering their countries. Ironically the high costs of dealing with emergency responses and the rebuilding required after a fire, flood, hurricane or other extreme weather event register as being of net-benefit to the country in the accounting. The billions of dollars in expenditures such events require all contribute to the GDP and therefore register as economic growth. A few good storms or fires or floods can boost economic growth, while climate action –shuttering all fossil fuel and related industries—detracts from economic growth. As long as the economy is in the driver's seat, in the short term governments are more likely to choose coping with climate change and extreme weather events over the slow almost imperceptible benefits of reduction of global warming in the longer term –a far longer term than the term in office of any elected government. Even when more and more of the general population is citing climate change as the number one issue facing us today, governments are slow to take action. Even political parties who include concern about carbon emissions in their election platforms are only addressing domestic emissions; they do not have a plan for getting poor and newly industrialized nations on board. They make no mention of the carbon emissions embodied in all the imported goods we consume. They do not acknowledge that the economy and perpetual economic growth can no longer remain in the drivers seat if we are to avert a complete climate apocalypse. Not nationally, not globally. Up until now we have left the allocation and use of resources to the algorithm of supply and demand, in which suppliers competed with each other to supply demand until equilibrium was reached. Now we need to suppress our inclination to compete and replace it with an inclination to cooperate. Unless a spirit of cooperation occupies the drivers seat we are doomed. That transition could prove to be an even more formidable obstacle to climate action than does the transition to renewable energy sources.  But we better get on with it, because time is running out, and without regime change we have no future.

From COVID Prevention to Coexistance:

COVID vaccinations have become a very polarizing issue in Canada and elsewhere. The long-awaited vaccinations have arrived, but the promised salvation and return to normalcy remain elusive. The unvaccinated are increasingly being singled out as the primary obstacle to normalcy. To be sure, not all of the unvaccinated are unvaccinated because they are refusing vaccinations. Many –children under twelve and those with allergies to vaccine components for instance—would be refused vaccines even if they wanted one. But those who are eligible and nevertheless have not availed themselves of readily available vaccines are increasingly being disparaged and vilified as selfish greedy individualists whose non-compliance regarding vaccinations is prioritizing their freedom to choose over the common good. The vaccines are safe, approved by public health, and any side effects are negligible when compared to the risks of severe infection and possible death due to COVID infections. Severe infections requiring hospitalization, and scarce resources jeopardize not only those so infected, but all others they end up infecting, and many many others being denied access to increasingly scarce healthcare resources –a triple jeopardy. It all seems pretty black and white –the us who are fully-vaccinated and the them who are not. The incumbent Liberals, who have opportunistically called an election in the midst of this pandemic, are exploiting and exacerbating this great divide, betting that the fully vaccinated majority will join them in denigrating and vilifying the unvaccinated, and vote Liberal. A small number of very vocal and increasingly confrontational anti-vaxers are targeting politicians on the campaign trail and impeding access to hospitals by their actions. Despite being only a very small percentage of the so-called vaccine-hesitant, conveniently for the Liberals, they have become the face of, and representative of all those opting out of vaccinations.

In reality things are a bit more nuanced than that. Could it be that some of the claims being made about vaccines are not as black and white as the official narrative leads us to believe? Lets take a closer look at some of them:

• The Vaccines are safe: In Canada expedited approval has been granted to AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines under an Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19 signed into effect by by the Minister of Health on Sept. 16, 2020. Expedited approval was deemed necessary because of the severity of COVID 19; going through normal channels for approval and waiting for more information about unforeseen long-term effects would have cost too many lives and overwhelmed the capacity of our healthcare systems. The efficacy of these vaccines at preventing serious illness and death in the short term has been deemed to outweigh any known and as yet unknown possible long-term adverse side effects. This interim order will expire on Sept. 16, 2021, but provisions to extend it are already underway:

As we reported, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Canada established emergency pathways to expedite review and approval of drugs and medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19 through Interim Orders. Health Canada intends to leverage and build upon those emergency pathways, as well as other existing policies and procedures, in updating the regulatory framework for drugs and medical devices. (source: Canada: Health Canada's Proposed Amendments To The Food And Drug Regulations And The Medical Devices Regulations)

Most authorized vaccines in the US have been authorized for emergency use only (EUA). However, in August Pfizer was given full approval, despite the fact that it is far too early to know what, if any, the long term side-effects might be. Because these long-term side-effects remain unknown there are no grounds for presuming there will be no serious delayed side-effects resulting from the use of the vaccine. Nor are there grounds to assume that there will be. It would be more accurate to say based on the scientific evidence to date the vaccines are presumed to be safe. While the known risks of side-effects caused by the vaccines are minimal in comparison with the severe illness and death that the virus often causes, the long-term risks associated with inoculations are unknown, and cannot be dismissed. The vaccine-hesitant may simply be less predisposed to ignore them than are pro-vaxers. The evidence suggests that, at least in the short term, vaccines are relatively safe compared to the risks associated with becoming infected.

The confidence of vaccine manufactures themselves is more in line with that of the vaccine-hesitant than with the pro-vaxers. Manufacturers are insisting on indemnity from prosecution for any unforeseen consequences resulting from the use of their products. Almost all countries have agreed to grant that indemnity, with a few exceptions; India, for instance, cannot procure and import vaccines because of it's refusal to grant manufacturers indemnity. Manufacturers are required to continue to conduct clinical studies on the long-term effects of their vaccines for five years or more.

• The efficacy of vaccines: References to the efficacy of vaccines are often confusing. The efficacy of vaccines is actually a measurement of how likely a vaccinated person is to become so ill they require hospitalization, ICU care, and/or die as the result of a COVID infection. It is not a measurement their immunity, nor their likelihood of infecting others.
  
  While there is statistical evidence to suggest that fully-vaccinated people are less likely to become infected, and less likely to infect others, if they do become infected, how much less likely they are to become infected and infect others is much more difficult to ascertain. There are a number of variables at play here. Despite frequent references to “a pandemic of the unvaccinated”, we now know that “breakthrough infections” in which fully-vaccinated become infected do occur, and they can go on to infect others. How frequently such breakthrough infections occur is largely unknown.
  
  Because fully-vaccinated people are less likely to show symptoms they may not even know they are infected, and are therefore less likely to present for testing. Continued reliance on self-assessments as the primary indicator of infections –the daily monitoring of symptoms—will not detect asymptomatic infections, so the number of breakthrough infections may be much higher than the statistics on known infections imply. This statistical omission is further exacerbated because the fully-vaccinated are often exempt from the frequent random testing requirements imposed on the unvaccinated.
  
  Furthermore, statistical data on the efficacy of vaccines doesn't always distinguish between the original SARS-CoV-2 and its variants; the efficacy of a vaccine against the now-dominant highly contagious and more virulent Delta variant is markedly lower than the level of protection vaccines conferred on those exposed to the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. Data on breakthrough cases –infections of the fully-vaccinated—does not give us a very complete picture of the number of breakthrough infections in Canada. We know that with the Delta variant breakthrough cases are on the rise. Fully-vaccinated people are less likely to show symptoms, and are usually not screened unless they happen to live in an area with a high prevalence of the virus or are identified as being a close contact or were in a situation where a breakout has occurred. However, if they are infected with the now-dominant Delta virus, their viral load is likely to be equal to that of an unvaccinated person –they will be equally contagious. (See: What do we know about breakthrough COVID-19 cases? Experts break down the science)

Finally, the efficacy of vaccines is also known to wane over time. Although Canada is now a world leader in terms of the percentage of the population that has been fully-vaccinated, most of us have not been fully-vaccinated for all that long. Israel might be a far better bellwether in this regard, because it was the first to vaccinate the majority of its population, almost exclusively with Pfizer. Israel began vaccinating its population in December 2020, and many Israelis received their second dose soon after their first dose in early 2021. Perhaps too soon after their first dose. While COVID news stories in Canada and much of the world talked about a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, Israel talked of a pandemic of the double-dosed vaccinated. Either because the efficacy of vaccines is significantly less after six months—some studies suggest as low as 29 %; or because the second dose was administered too soon after the first; or because most were infected with the far more contagious far more virulent Delta variant; or most probably some combination of all three of these factors, many fully-vaccinated (two dose) Israelis ended up being hospitalized, some in ICUs:

What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. [As in Canada, the elderly were the first to be vaccinated. The elderly are not only among the most vulnerable; because they also received their vaccinations earlier their immunity has had more time to wear off.] (Source: A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta)

• Natural Immunity: Among the unvaccinated are those who have recovered from a COVID 19 infection and those who are generally healthy and simply assume they will recover if they do become infected. This assumption is probably fairly well-founded, since most healthy individuals do indeed recover while self-isolating at home and the vast majority of positive cases do not require hospitalization. In the early days of the pandemic people with mild symptoms were actually discouraged from presenting for testing to avoid further overwhelming already overwhelmed testing facilities. Fighting the infection conferred natural immunity on recovered individuals –an immunity that may well be superior to, and longer-lasting than the immunity conferred by vaccines. Some say the immunity of recovered COVID cases would not be bolstered by even one dose of a vaccine, and getting two doses is almost certainly pointless. Others say that their natural immunity may not extend to protection against new more virulent variants such as Delta, and recommend that recovered COVID cases also be fully-vaccinated.
  
  But, as we have seen above, even the fully-vaccinated may not be adequately protected from new and emerging variants. It is entirely possible that unvaccinated fully-recovered COVID cases have greater immunity than do the fully-vaccinated. The presence and number of antibodies can only be detected by a serology (blood) test. Serology tests are also the only way of determining if a recovered asymptomatic person was ever infected by COVID 19 in the first place. Certainly a person whose serology test indicates that he or she has had COVID and retains sufficient antibodies to fight off new infections should not be obliged to get vaccinated!
  
  

• Long-haulers: Little is known about long-haulers, but we are learning more. Even the definition of a long-hauler is not widely agreed upon. Long-haulers are those who continue to, or begin to show symptoms long after most normal positive COVID cases have fully recovered. Their illness is sometimes referred to as a post-COVID malady, although some never even knew they had been infected until serology tests proved otherwise. These illnesses can be quite serious. Some children, who had initially remained symptom-free in the early days of their infections, were later hospitalized because of delayed adverse reactions to the infection.
  
  

• Herd immunity: Herd immunity is no longer attainable. The numbers required to reach herd immunity have risen with the advent of new, much more contagious, and more virulent variants of the virus. It is no longer 70 % but 90 % of the population that must be immune to the virus to achieve herd immunity. Given that over 10 % of the population is comprised of children under twelve years of age who cannot be vaccinated, 90 % immunity is unachievable. If you add those who have allergies to that number, and all those experiencing breakthrough infections despite being fully vaccinated to that number, striving to achieve herd immunity is futile.
  
  This reality, though seldom stated, is reflected in the subtext of current COVID policies. The strategy is now to devise methods in which we can coexist with the virus. While vaccinations cannot end the spread of the virus and newly emerging variants, they can allow for the resumption of economic and leisure activity by the fully vaccinated. The incidence of severe illness and death is low enough among the fully vaccinated that they can be allowed to shop, travel, eat in restaurants, attend theatres, sports events and schools, and most importantly, work, without overwhelming the healthcare systems. But only if all eligible people become fully-vaccinated. Hence the incessant push to get everyone vaccinated. Those relatively few serious breakthrough infections, along with the serious infections among unvaccinated children and serious non-COVID illnesses, can all be accommodated by the healthcare system as long as there aren't large numbers of seriously ill unvaccinated COVID victims taking up most of the ICU beds.
  
  

These are but a few of the considerations to bear in mind when trying to make sense of the ever-changing COVID 19 protocols, vaccine passports, and vaccine hesitancy. Thinks aren't as black and white as they are made out to be. Some of the inconsistencies are due to trade-offs when public health policies are deemed to be too great an impediment to economic recovery. One has to parse out public health considerations from political considerations from economic considerations, all of which are often conflated by government recommendations and policies.

Public Health is administered by the provinces, and policies vary from province to province. A look at what COVID policies can do and cannot do provide clues as to whether they are primarily designed to prevent the spread of the virus, or allow for the resumption of full participation in the economy as producers, providers of services, and as consumers. We will take a cursory look at a few protocols and policies that remain in effect, that have been changed or relaxed, and new exemptions to certain requirements. This table does not capture all of the nuances, but the number of checks in the right-hand column, and particularly policies 1, 5, 6, and 8 which do absolutely nothing to prevent spread or transmission, are clearly designed to promote economic recovery in the midst of a pandemic rather than prevent or slow transmission. Note that the relaxing of student self-assessment symptoms not only allows more mildly symptomatic children to attend school; it also allows their parents to go to work while the child is in school.The granting of exemptions to the fully-vaccinated and the asymptomatic underscore that concern for the economy has now eclipsed concern about the spread of the virus. Vaccinations still play a crucial role, not because they will result in herd immunity and an end to the pandemic, but because the fully-vaccinated for the most part will be able to function normally even when they are infected. This will require periodic booster shots as the efficacy of vaccines wears off. The healthcare system can cope with a few cases of severe breakthrough infections, as well as non-COVID critical illnesses, as long as enough of the unvaccinated get vaccinated to ensure that the healthcare system is not once again overwhelmed by severe COVID cases.

Challenges to Addressing the Climate Crisis in a Finite World

Okay, so now it's official. The UN has spoken. Their verdict is in. They have finally named the elephant in the room. Global warming is happening faster than anticipated, and it is now too late to prevent it.

Although there's no stopping it, we can mitigate it; we can plan for how to best cope with inevitable future extreme weather events that will undoubtedly be even worse than those we are experiencing now. If we act now we may even still be left with a somewhat livable planet. But precisely who needs to act? And exactly what must we/they do/stop doing, and start doing? What is the plan, and how will it be implemented? Who, if anyone, is in charge? Questions abound, but definitive answers remain elusive. Some of the most obvious questions to climate action are:

1. Is climate action compatible with democracy? Most signatories to climate agreements are elected representatives of democracies. Will enough of the voters in each of these democratic nations elect representatives with an unwavering commitment to acting effectively, decisively, and immediately? Or will democracy show itself to be yet another obstacle rather than a tool for implementing effective, decisive and immediate climate action?

2. Is climate action compatible with the global free-market economic development model? All industries and businesses are in competition with each other in the global market place. The most “successful” of these are those who manage to increase efficiency and productivity by automation and by minimizing and/or externalizing production costs. Will these industries be able to remain competitive and survive if they agree to meet carbon emission reduction targets? If not, what, if anything, will compel these industries to stop externalizing production costs while reducing their own carbon emissions? What must happen to ensure that industries in a global competitive marketplace will no longer contribute to out-of-control environmental deficits by shifting production costs to jurisdictions with lax or unenforced environmental laws? What needs to happen to stop fossil fuel industries from supplying such jurisdictions with coal and oil? What needs to happen before the emissions associated with burning some of the dirtiest fuel available to transport fuel, other raw materials, and finished consumer goods tens of thousands of miles across our dying oceans? Is perpetual economic growth, expansion, exploitation and destruction of finite resources compatible with sustaining a livable planet?

3. Is climate action compatible with global inequality? Clearly, as exemplified by global vaccine distribution, some countries are economically far better able to undertake climate action than others. Will economic compensation be provided to incentivize countries that lack the economic resources to do so? If so, who will provide these economic resources?
   
   Furthermore, there is a very strong correlation between carbon emissions and levels of consumption. If countries and individuals with high levels of consumption –large carbon footprints—are primarily responsible for the global climate crisis, will they also bear the brunt of the costs of climate action? The impact of global warming is felt by everyone, but especially by poor people suffering because of extreme weather events –floods, droughts, crop failures, out-of-control forest fires, cyclones and typhoons, etc. Not only is mitigation against further increases in global temperature absolutely necessary; the consequences of on-going extreme weather events must also be mitigated against. How will we accommodate all those climate refugees and all those displaced by extreme weather events? Who will feed the destitute? Will climate refugees be allowed to immigrate to more hospitable climates? Will those most adversely affected be allowed to sue those most responsible for damages? Or will they be left to drown in the Mediterranean, warehoused in make-shift concentration camps, or deported back to where they came from or some third country? Can carbon emissions be reduced without the active participation of the 80% of the world's population who collectively only consume 20% of the resources, and are therefore only responsible for 20 % of carbon emissions? Or must global inequality be addressed before international cooperation on climate action can be achieved?

4. Will consumer choices significantly reduce carbon emissions? Will the purchasing of solar panels, LED light bulbs, windmills, and electric cars by a relatively small percentage of the world's well-heeled super-consumers significantly reduce global carbon emissions? Or must over-privileged super-consumers, super-emitters be eliminated in order to save the planet?

5. Is there an entity that can and will assume responsibility for this global climate crisis? Is the United Nations, in which five countries—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—hold veto power, be capable of coming up with an agreement and a plan, oversee the implementation of that plan, and enforce compliance? If not the UN, then who? Alas, there is no other pan-global entity on the horizon capable of undertaking such a task.

6. Is international cooperation on the part of nation states even possible? What we have seen to date is a blame-game and finger-pointing, with countries absolving themselves of responsibility while blaming each other for the crisis: developed countries blame developing countries for using oil and coal as sources of energy for fuelling their development; developing countries are quick to point out that developed countries have centuries of history of carbon emission, all of which contributed to the current crisis; countries like Canada, with relatively low aggregate levels of carbon emissions blame countries like China, with relatively high aggregate emission levels; Countries like China, with relatively low per capita emission levels point to countries like Canada, which has one of the highest per capita emission levels in the world; developing countries are quick to point out that most of the fossil fuel energy they use is used to manufacture goods for consumers living in developed countries, so it is consumers in developed countries who are “demanding” and driving their use of fossil fuels in their production processes; etc. Oil and fossil fuel producing countries are quick to point out the world's dependence on fossil fuel energy and plastics, and the impossibility of overnight transitions. This blame-game and finger-pointing is used by pretty much all nation states as an excuse for their own inaction, thus precluding any possibility of international cooperation on the climate crisis.

7. Can coercion, threats of sanctions and/or military might etc. by wealthy, powerful, over-privileged, over-developed, and over-consuming nations substitute for voluntary global cooperation on the part of the majority of less powerful, less developed, low consumption, and underprivileged poor nations? Can the crisis be addressed without also addressing issues of climate injustice and economic injustice? Would the energy and fossil fuel emissions required to coerce the unwilling into compliance be offset by reductions in the comparatively minuscule carbon emissions of billions of the world's have-nots?Is there any point in even worrying about the carbon emissions of the "have-nots", given that the life-styles of the "haves" are the primary driver of carbon emissions? What would the use of coercion, sanctions and/or the use of military persuasion on the "haves"look like? How likely is that? 

This is but a a short, by no means comprehensive, list of questions that must be answered if our children are to have a future. I have no answers. The prognosis looks bleak. In close correlation with responsibility for carbon emissions, the benefits have also accrued to a very small percentage of the world's population, while the costs of the crisis are born by all—especially by the poorest, most vulnerable and most powerless majority of those living in the two-thirds world. Any thoughts, suggestions, and/or solutions you have regarding this existential crisis would be most welcome!

Emancipation or Obfuscation? The economics of slavery

 

Before emancipation slaves were very valuable, marketable, living commodities. Slavery was abolished throughout the British empire in 1833, and in1863 in the US. Almost 200 years later it is very difficult for many of us to imagine human beings reduced to commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace like cattle.

Perhaps looking at how dairy cattle –other living, breathing, marketable commodities--are bought and sold well deepen our understanding of slavery. There are certain similarities. Like cattle, slaves were investments. The prices buyers were willing to pay for a slave depended on how large a return such an investment was expected to yield. Like cattle, the age, health, and expected duration of the work-life of the slave in question were all considerations in accessing the market value of a slave. Also, like cattle, there were high maintenance costs associated with ownership; both cattle and slaves need to be fed, housed, and cared for. And, as with all commodities, a high demand for labour would raise the price of a slave in the same way that high demand for milk would increase the market-value of a dairy cow. In the 1800s there was very high demand for labour, especially on plantations.

In 1850 the average price of a slave ranged from $14,000 to $240,000 in today's dollars. Today a dairy cow would fetch somewhere between $900 and $3,000. Of course a young healthy slave or dairy cow would fetch far more than an old decrepit one. At the end of their productive years dairy cows could be sold to the glue factory or turned into dog food. Not so for slaves; if they outlived their usefulness they became a liability. Nevertheless, and not surprisingly, slaves fetched far more in the marketplace than dairy cows do, the former being far more versatile than the latter, the use-life expectancy of  slaves much longer, and slave labour being far scarcer than milk.

That was then. This is now. Today we are celebrating the 187th anniversary of the emancipation of slaves, and congratulating ourselves for having abolished that ancient barbaric practice. But what is absent from the discourse is how we avail ourselves of cheap labour in this day and age. We often don't even give a second thought to today's treatment of labourers, which is in many respects worse than slavery. Slaves were the private property of slave owners, as dairy cows continue to be the private property of dairy farmers. Private property rights were and are highly respected. The loss of private property was mitigated against.  Great care was taken to ensure that the private property was fed well enough and kept healthy enough to maintain maximum  productivity.

Today most labour (apart from service sector labour) is out-sourced. Out-sourcing labour --renting a workforce elsewhere—allows contractors to avoid high maintenance costs, along with the responsibility of looking after the well being and safety of their workforce. Such workforces can be obtained for only a small fraction of what it would have cost to house, clothe and feed an equivalent number of slaves. And because the supply of workers greatly exceeds demand, such a workforce can be acquired for next to nothing. And you don't have to pay their medical bills. Should a worker die, or should the factory catch fire or the roof fall in killing several or all of them, a subcontractor will quickly and easily find alternative replacement workers. And for the same cost as buying a single slave in the 1800s, you can now rent a Haitian worker for fifty years! Or a 10 Sri Lankan worker for 20 years, although your shipping costs may be higher. Furthermore, by outsourcing your labour requirements you can avoid having to comply with local environmental and worker protection laws. And the best part is that you can externalize all of the maintenance and replacement costs of maintaining a workforce.

Yes, we are absolutely right to condemn slavery. But what we have allowed to replace it is in many respects even more despicable. Self-congratulations are not in order. We haven't really abolished slavery; we have only disguised, re-branded, and externalized it. And Western consumers benefit from this because the savings on labour are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices in our dollar stores, our Walmarts, and Amazon, while overseas workers have no option but to work long hours in unsafe workplaces for sub-subsistence wages. They are no more free than slaves were. We have abolished nothing. We are only obfuscating the issue.

What does the COVID 19 data tell us about socioeconomic development?

 

If the number of COVID deaths per million is any indication of which countries are the least developed socioeconomically, and it is, the US ranks 21^st out of 220 countries, followed by the UK, with 1,896/m and 1,886/m respectively. If we are going to parse out the “socio” from the “economic” in our metric we will have a better understanding of why countries rank as they do. Do the US and UK rank so low because they can't afford to vaccinate their populations or provide adequate treatment to COVID victims? Let's look at where countries of interest rank in terms of GDP per capita and find out:

Here we see that with the exception of Norway, the country with the largest social safety net, the two countries with the lowest GDP/capita have experienced far less COVID deaths/capita than the two countries with the highest GDP/capita. The USA, with a per capita GDP that is roughly 3.5 and 25 times that of the countries with the lowest per capita GDP is experiencing 311 and 8 times the number of deaths per capita. We can conclude that the poor socioeconomic ranking of the USA and UK cannot be attributed to a lack of economic resources. Therefore it must be because of how they are using available resources; the countries with the most economic resources are clearly lagging far behind the others in terms of social development. This should be particularly concerning to all of us, because it is also these two countries are the worst in terms of politically interfering in the affairs of other countries. To borrow a Gunther Frank phrase, they are largely responsible for “the development of underdevelopment”, not only at home, but also in the rest of the world. Ironically these two countries produce their own vaccines, and largely responsible for the abysmal global roll-out of vaccines. (The above statistics were obtained from Worldometer date on July 25 and 26, 2021)

In addition to being among the least developed socially, countries topping the list also suffer from moral depravity. Rather than donating surplus vaccines to countries who desperately need them, they are being allowed to expire. This is as true of Canada as of the USA. The UK is donating some 9 million vaccines to COVAX, most of which are due to expire in September –a time frame far too short for most recipient countries, whose healthcare systems are completely overwhelmed, to distribute them. Meanwhile Pfizer, one of the primary manufactures and distributors of vaccines, is strongly recommending that countries who cannot convince many of their citizens to get even a first dose, nevertheless purchase additional vaccines and offer them as a booster to citizens who have already received 2 doses. Beyond the pale is a campaign circulating on FaceBook that encourages anti-vaxers to book appointments regardless in order to further deplete the supply of available vaccines.