Page 2 – Commenting graphs with a paragraph…

23Oct

How price gaps drive resource drains

Global North countries tend to drain resources from the rest of the world—a process called ecological unequal exchange. Also, the more a country is drained, the less it gets paid, measured in value-added per ton (unless the drained country is a global North country). So why do these imbalances persist? Shouldn’t prices eventually adjust, as mainstream economics suggests? This study shows the global monetary system is largely to blame. Global North countries have higher “price levels,” which reflect differences in the value of currencies—more precisely, differences between market exchange (ME) rates, and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates which compare currencies based on living costs. Economists expect these two rates to align in competitive markets. However, for global South countries, the ME rate is persistently lower than the PPP rate (e.g., 1$:74₹ and 1$:23₹ for India in 2021), and the price level (ME divided by PPP rate) is therefore lower too. This graph shows that the North-South price level gap is linked to ecological unequal exchange. Higher price levels correlate with higher value-added per resource exported as well as with greater net-imports of resources. While some correlations, like those for land and energy imports, aren’t statistically significant, the patterns are strong for labour, raw materials, and the overall monetary value of resources. This suggests that ecological unequal exchange represent the combination of material and monetary imbalances between North and South.

Source: Olk, C. (2024). How much a dollar cost: Currency hierarchy as a driver of ecologically unequal exchange. World Development, 180, 106649.

17Oct

Decent living gaps

In recent years, defining “decent living standards” (DLS)—the basics for human well-being—has gained attention. This study examines the shortfalls in providing decent health, shelter, nutrition, socialisation, and mobility worldwide. The gaps are stark: in sub-Saharan Africa, over 60% of people fail to meet DLS levels on more than half of the basic needs, like housing, sanitation, and water access. South and Pacific Asia face similar issues, with additional struggles in clean cooking and heating. This study also reveals that in all countries of the global South, DLS shortfalls far outstrip income poverty rates, even at slightly more realistic poverty thresholds.

Source: Kikstra, J. S., Mastrucci, A., Min, J., Riahi, K., & Rao, N. D. (2021). Decent living gaps and energy needs around the world. Environmental Research Letters, 16(9), 095006.

12Oct

European Green Deal’s ecological spillovers

The European Green Deal’s (EGD) push to cut carbon emissions and restore ecosystems is NOT green. Not only will it contribute to the global rush on limited metals, but it could also trigger major environmental damage outside the EU. By 2030, the EGD’s agriculture and forestry goals would increase demand for 23.9 million hectares of farmland outside the EU (on top of existing land claims outside the EU). This would lead to a staggering rise in CO2 emissions—about 758.9 million tons—equivalent to 245% of the EGD’s carbon reduction target for land use and forestry sectors (310 MtCO2e). If that wasn’t bad enough, it could cause the loss of 3.86 million species abundance (on top of existing outsourcing of extinction footprints). All of this will undermine the gains from the EGD’s policies on deforestation-free imports and biofuels. Such resource drains and environmental strains that high-income countries outsource to the rest of the world are part of a long (neo-)colonial history of ecological unequal exchange.

Source: Zhong, H., Li, Y., Ding, J., Bruckner, B., Feng, K., Sun, L., … & Hubacek, K. (2024). Global spillover effects of the European Green Deal and plausible mitigation options. Nature Sustainability, 1-11.

7Oct

Drained and underpaid

Capitalism’s ecologically destructive path fuels inequality in who bears the brunt of resource extraction, environmental damage, and blame. Research on Ecological Unequal Exchange (EUE) has highlighted this issue. But why exactly is EUE unequal? First, the system’s relentless demand for resources by wealthy regions leaves the rest deprived, turning EUE into an environmental zero-sum game. Second, the local environmental damage caused by extraction is unfairly concentrated in specific areas, deepening the inequality. Third, the global South is not just drained of natural resources but also underpaid, reinforcing long-term uneven development. We can illustrate this by measuring the average monetary compensation per resource exported. Specifically, we divide the Trade in Value Added (TiVA, i.e., value added by all production steps within a country) in exports by the resources used in those exports. For example, one study shows that high-income countries capture 11 times greater compensation per ton of raw material in exports compared to low-income countries. The graphs shared here support this by plotting per capita net imports of resources against TiVA per resource exported, demonstrating that the more a country is drained of resources through trade, the more underpaid it tends to be in the process.

Source: Olk, C. (2024). How much a dollar cost: Currency hierarchy as a driver of ecologically unequal exchange. World Development, 180, 106649.

28Sep

Global North Must Slash Resource Hoarding by 70%

In 2015, global production systems used 90 billion tonnes (Bt/yr). High-income countries are the biggest over-users, hoarding metals, fossil fuels, and biomass through trade with the rest of the world. Between 1970 and 2017, they drove 74% of global resource overshoot, with the US alone responsible for 27%, and wealthier EU nations adding 25%. Meanwhile, China contributed 15%, and the entire Global South—Africa, Latin America, and Asia—just 8%. The high-income countries have far exceeded their “fair share”, blowing past the sustainable limit of 50 billion tonnes per year (Bt/yr) since 1997. To prevent more damage, they must cut consumption by 70%, from 32.7 Bt/yr to 8.1 Bt/yr. They owe this to the planet and to the countries that have contributed the least to the environmental crisis. Low-income countries, which use only 1.8 Bt/yr, can increase to 5.1 Bt/yr for a fair share.

Sources: Bringezu, S. (2015). Possible target corridor for sustainable use of global material resources. Resources, 4(1), 25-54; Hickel, J., O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., & Zoomkawala, H. (2022). National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(4), e342-e349; Image: University of Leeds. (2024). National Responsibility for Ecological Breakdown. A Good Life For All Within Planetary Boundaries.

24Sep

Global trade’s extinction footprint

Biodiversity, crucial for sustaining ecosystems that support human life, is under serious threat, largely due to human activities. Habitat destruction and climate change are major factors, often driven by consumption in distant countries. This study tracks extinction-risk footprints for 188 nations, showing which countries’ consumption impacts species the most—whether from imported, exported, or domestic sources. The map highlights that 76 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and East Asia, are net importers of extinction risk (orange). In net exporters (green), the risk is driven by consumption abroad, while domestic consumption dominates in others (blue). Global trade accounts for 29.5% of the overall extinction-risk footprint.

Source: Irwin, A., Geschke, A., Brooks, T. M., Siikamaki, J., Mair, L., & Strassburg, B. B. (2022). Quantifying and categorising national extinction-risk footprints. Scientific reports, 12(1), 5861.

19Sep

Wealthy nations outsource their land use

Land use is becoming more globalised, easing pressure on local ecosystems in some areas but raising pressures elsewhere. This study finds that wealthier countries rely less on local and more on imported resources, using the concept of “embodied human appropriation of net primary production” (eHANPP), which tracks how much of the natural inflow of energy and biomass into the biosphere (NPP) humans appropriate through the harvesting or burning biomass and converting natural ecosystems to managed lands. The study identifies five land-use clusters: exporters, outsourcers, intensifiers, intermediates, and the self-sufficient. Exporters like Australia and Canada lead in per capita eHANPP exports, while self-sufficient nations in Africa and Asia rely heavily on local resources. Intensifiers have high energy and material use per biomass unit. Outsourcers, mainly wealthy European countries, depend on eHANPP net-imports, using 43% of their own NPP and importing similar amounts, while consuming four to five times more energy and materials than the global average.

Source: Dorninger, C., von Wehrden, H., Krausmann, F., Bruckner, M., Feng, K., Hubacek, K., … & Abson, D. J. (2021). The effect of industrialization and globalization on domestic land-use: A global resource footprint perspective. Global Environmental Change, 69, 102311.

11Sep

Drain of labour from global South to North

In 2021, the global North exported commodities representing 80 billion hours of labour while importing 906 billion hours from the global South. This resulted in a net drain of 826 billion hours, which is equivalent to the full-time efforts of 369 million workers—more than the combined workforce of the United States and the European Union. Each year, the North consumes approximately twice as much labour as it produces. In 2021, net-appropriated labour accounted for 46% of the North’s total labour consumption, as shown in the figure. The figure also illustrates that the economies of the global North have become increasingly reliant on low-skilled labor, with 71% of it being net-appropriated from the global South in 2021. The drain of 826 billion hours translates to a €16.9 trillion windfall for the global North, more than double the figure in 1995. Between 1995 and 2021, these gains amount to €310 trillion.

Source: Hickel, J., Hanbury Lemos, M., & Barbour, F. (2024). Unequal exchange of labour in the world economy. Nature Communications, 15(1), 6298.

7Sep

“Safe and just” requires redistribution

The “safe and just operating space” envisions meeting human needs without breaching the planet’s environmental limits. This graph compares the impacts of achieving “decent living standards” (DLS) against “planetary boundaries” (PBs). The results show that reducing consumption to DLS levels (while increasing it for those below, as others also argued), without transforming provisioning systems, cuts impacts by about half (confirmed by other studies). However, this alone won’t bring us into the “safe” zone, as climate, biodiversity, and nitrogen PBs would still be breached. A “safe and just” outcome for up to 10.4 billion people is possible, but it requires redistributing resources (to DLS levels), transitioning to fossil-free energy systems, adopting largely vegan diets, and halting further land conversion.

Source: Schlesier, H., Schäfer, M., & Desing, H. (2024). Measuring the Doughnut: A good life for all is possible within planetary boundaries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 448, 141447.

2Sep

Decent living with 30% of the footprint

The idea that all countries need to reach high-income GDP levels to end poverty is unrealistic, especially considering the imperialistic reliance of high-income countries on resource drains from the low-income countries. Also, ending poverty under current conditions would further speed up ecological collapse, especially if we were to use a more realistic poverty line. Instead of allowing endless profit and growth, we should focus on meeting human needs through targeted production, public provisioning, and decommodification. Wealthy countries should scale down unnecessary production to cut emissions and reduce resource use. This approach allows decent living standards for 8.5 billion people with just 30% of current global resource use. Good news, but not easy to achieve, as it requires shifting away from profit-driven capitalism and building sovereign capacity in the global South.

Source: Hickel, J., & Sullivan, D. (2024). How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis. World Development Perspectives, 35, 100612.