Latest news with #democracies
The Independent
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Democracies appear greener by outsourcing pollution to autocratic nations, study finds
Democratic countries are often viewed as climate leaders but new research suggests their greener records may come from shifting pollution overseas rather than cutting it outright. Democracies tend to outsource the environmental damage of their consumption to other nations more than autocratic states do, a study published in PLOS Climate on Wednesday found. This 'pollution offshoring' allows them to lower greenhouse gas emissions within their borders while the global environmental burden remains. 'We provide one of the first systematic studies on how much 'pollution offshoring' is associated with domestic (territorial) emission levels in democracies,' said the authors. 'The main result is that pollution offshoring is linked significantly and substantively with lower greenhouse gas emissions 'at home' in democracies'. The study analysed 161 countries from 1990 to 2015, using greenhouse gas data, trade records and democracy scores to explore how environmental impacts are redistributed through global trade. The findings show that democratic nations not only outsource more pollution than others, but that this is strongly linked to lower per capita emissions domestically. On average, greenhouse gas emissions were over one metric ton per person lower in democracies that offshore more pollution, compared to their less democratic counterparts. Pollution offshoring refers to when countries stop producing polluting goods themselves and instead import them, shifting the environmental damage to producing countries. This is common in global trade, particularly between wealthier democracies and lower-income nations with weaker environmental regulations. The researchers cited earlier UN reports that documented how countries such as Japan and Germany reduced their emissions at home while increasing the emissions they were effectively responsible for abroad, mainly through imports from countries like China. While previous studies suggested democracies perform better on environmental metrics due to greater public accountability and stronger regulations, this new analysis raises questions about what those metrics really capture. Cleaner domestic air and reduced local emissions may reflect better public demand and policy. but also a global redistribution of pollution through trade. 'This calls into question the moral high ground of democracies versus autocracies in terms of environmental protection,' the authors said in their press release. The findings arrive amid growing debates about environmental justice and responsibility, particularly as richer democracies negotiate international climate agreements like the Global Plastics Treaty and COP29. These forums often emphasise national targets, while overlooking the global impacts of consumption. The paper contributes to a growing body of research challenging territorial-based climate accounting, which can understate the true environmental cost of wealthy nations' lifestyles. The authors argue that high-income democracies in particular should reorient their environmental policies to account not just for emissions within their borders, but for the full impact of their consumption abroad.
The Guardian
11-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump will destroy world trade, but democracies can defend themselves – and each other
The postwar global economic order, with the United States at its centre, has created more prosperity than any other period in human history. Yet as Donald Trump takes a sledgehammer to that economic order, America's democratic allies face a choice. We can accept the new cost of doing business with the US. We can follow the US down a path of mutually assured economic destruction with an ever-escalating trade war. Or we can find new avenues to keep free trade alive. My proposition? I believe we need a new platform for economic cooperation between the world's seven leading democracies. Call it the 'Democratic 7', or 'D7'. The EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea represent roughly 25% of global GDP and account for about 35% of global trade volume. Together, these democracies can help to shield each other from the threats of economic nationalism and coercion – while also championing democracy, the rule of law, and market economics. The building blocks for this are already in place. The D7 would draw on an existing web of bilateral and regional trade agreements and could serve as an incentive to sign new ones. Already, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP, includes Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The EU maintains comprehensive agreements with Japan, South Korea and Canada. An outstanding agreement between the EU and Australia could be put back on track, and the UK chancellor, Rachel Reeves, recently stressed an improvement in the UK-EU trading relationship as 'imperative'. The cornerstone of a D7 economic alliance would be the economic equivalent of Nato's foundational principle, article 5, which holds that an attack on one is an attack on all. When economic powers threaten critical supply chains, engage in economic blackmail, or use access to their markets as leverage, they're counting on isolating vulnerable countries. After Canada honoured its extradition treaty with the US and detained a Huawei executive, for example, Canadian exports of pork and canola were banned from China. Australia's trade with its Pacific neighbour was frozen after Canberra suggested an inquiry into the origins of the Covid pandemic, and South Korean companies have paid the price for decisions made in Seoul that displeased Beijing. The D7's article 5 would ensure that coercion against one D7 member triggers an immediate, proportional response from all. This would fundamentally alter the calculus of those who wield their economic might as a weapon. The D7's mandate could also extend beyond defensive measures. It could create new frameworks for secure supply chains in critical sectors like semiconductors, rare earth minerals, medical supplies and green technologies. When one member faces shortages, others could provide priority access. Joint investment in production could ensure resilience against future disruptions of the kind we saw during the pandemic, and following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Together, D7 members could build a coherent, streamlined trading zone: reducing tariffs, removing bureaucratic hurdles, and establishing new standards based on shared values. Doing so would enhance our collective negotiating power when dealing with the US and China. When setting collective standards on emerging technologies like AI, for example, a D7's collective economic weight would help prevent global rules being dictated by autocrats or tech oligarchs. But no alliance is made stronger by becoming a closed club. While seven could serve as a starting point, the door should remain open to those who share these democratic values and are willing to support rules-based trade and prevent economic coercion, be they from Asia, Africa, Latin America, or elsewhere. True, a D7 would be an undoubtedly complex undertaking. Any number of politicians and vested interests could raise concerns about agricultural policies or regulatory approaches. Europe can seldom find unanimity, and there is also the fact of Brexit to contend with. But the global economic order that has benefited the world's democracies is today facing an existential threat. If this order continues to fragment, democracies will be left at the whims of Trump and Xi Jinping. That's why democracies need to stand together. Even while we grapple with this painful new reality, we must not forget: we still maintain the power to shape it. Anders Fogh Rasmussen was Nato secretary general from 2009-2014 and prime minister of Denmark from 2001-2009
