This is the first of a series that will look at and into true cost of certain goods and services. Cash subsidies thereby is one component, but certainly not the only one relevant one – indirect subsidies (e.g. in the form of environmental degradation or similar) need to be considered also. In this particular post, I’d like to focus on Oil & Gas subsidies, fossil fuels' True Cost, and what we know about these. What we already also learn: comparing apples to apples won't be easy.
True Cost calculations are only ever 'best available efforts', and much data remains missing or speculative at best. This is an issue we will encounter again also once we'll look into renewables, or indeed other kinds of industries outside of energy.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. When in the previous post I looked at subsidies and the True Cost (associated with the True Price) for oil and gas, this time I’d like to look into what we know about the True Cost of Energy. Not just about fossil fuels, but indeed across the breadth of the energy spectrum.
The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the
different types of energy we use globally?
Spoiler alert: It's very interesting - and also a bit suprising and counter-intuitive.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. This time I’d like to look into the True Cost of all types Transport and Mobility: road, rail, aviation and water. The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the different types of transport we use globally, both for passengers and for freight? Or if you prefer: how do different types of transport compare to each other when it comes to ‘collateral damage’?
Spoiler alert: It is really quite complex and rather diverse. And: public infrastructure investments and maintenance costs play a significant role in it.
Large companies and institutional players are challenged to assess and calculate their carbon footprint. But they typically have the means to hire experts – in-house or consultants – and buy licenses of useful tools.This applies similarly to larger-sized SMEs. But what about distinctly small companies or indeed even individuals? How can they get a guesstimate on their carbon footprint, and possibly even some pointers how to do better going forward? Hence, here a short list of such calculators, both for individuals as well as for small companies.
Over 100 million people rely on inshore subsistence and small-scale artisanal fishing for their daily food and livelihood. But it’s not them that we’ll talk about in this post – because they are the unfortunate ones at the end of the short stick in the global game of industrial subsides.
In this post we talk about the industrial fishing industry, the subsidies that go into it, the really sticky WTO negotiations to make away with them.
It's not all doom and gloom. There is hope - just that it comes from elsewhere than governments.
In time for Christmas, one of the most historic inter-governmental landmark decisions hit the headlines: The 'Biodiversity' COP (COP15) had actually achieved 'something'. 200 countries had agreed on 4 Goals and 23 Targets. Some of those are a bit more concrete than others, the headline goes roughly like this: “By 2030: Protect 30% of Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas, inland waters; Reduce by $500 billion annual harmful government subsidies; Cut food waste in half.” A closer look at precisely those 23 Targets and the specificity of the measures they contain.
After some results at the COP in Vancouver, as well as efforts by the TNFD (Task Force for nature-based financial disclosure) – we finally (!) got the first ever Science -Based Targets for Nature (SBTN).
It is a first release, however. So the question obviously is, how do these targets address the 5 key drivers of biodiversity erosion? Are the SBTNs worth their salt?
After some results at the COP in Vancouver, as well as the release of the first ever Science -Based Targets for Nature (SBTN) – finally (!) the recommendations by the TNFD (Task Force for nature-based financial disclosure) have been released. So the question obviously is, how do these targets address the 5 key drivers of biodiversity erosion eventhough it is only about reporting? Are the TNDF recommendations worth their salt?
COP28 yielded mixed results, featuring some historic 'firsts' such as a fossil fuel phase-out commitment, a $700 million loss and damage fund, the recognition of nuclear energy, and (this is huge!) a pointed spotlight on food systems' role in adaption.
Most of the old challenges though remain: It's all carrots and no sticks. Which shows in the continued absence of enforcement of Climate Targets or their stringency, and the eye-level conversation with Global South nations.
No More Content