In addition to the increase in emissions from freight transport, trade affects climate change by changing production techniques and specialisations. The overall effect depends on comparative advantages, environmental policies and the nature of trade agreements.
The issue of the impact of international trade on the environment is not a new one; it has been present in the economic literature since the 1970s. The work multiplied in the 1990s, during the debates surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations and the Uruguay Round of the GATT, and as the volumes traded increased (multiplied by 9 between 1980 and 2014, with the share of trade in world gross domestic product now reaching 30%).
Beyond the direct effect on emissions from freight transport, theoretical work has identified three main mechanisms through which trade can have an impact on climate change (see Copeland and Taylor, 2004 for a summary).
An increase in trade can induce an increase in production and thus, other things being equal, in greenhouse gas emissions. This is known as the “scale effect”.
Trade liberalization shifts the production of goods and services according to the comparative advantages of the countries concerned. Thus, taking prices into account, production can be relocated to countries with high unit emissions (or vice versa). This effect is known as the “composition effect”.
Finally, trade can have a “technical effect”: it can make available, or reduce the cost of certain technologies and thus modify production methods, and thus emission intensities. The discussions on environmental goods currently underway at the World Trade Organization thus aim to reduce tariff barriers for the least polluting technologies.
Scale effects tend to increase emissions while technology effects tend to decrease them. Composition effects are more ambiguous. They depend on comparative advantages, the latter being influenced by the country’s endowment of production factors but also by the environmental policies in place (a low-carbon taxing country will have an advantage in the production of high emitting goods). It is on the balance between these two elements that an important part of the debate has taken place: while the effect of environmental policies is preponderant, it is expected that, during trade liberalization, the production of polluting goods will be concentrated where environmental policies are less strict, especially in developing countries, constituting a “pollution haven”. If, on the contrary, the factor endowment effect dominates, polluting industries are expected to concentrate in developed countries. Indeed, these industries are often capital-intensive and the most capital-intensive countries are the developed countries. These considerations are further complicated by the fact that environmental policies are not fixed but evolve with income. Thus, trade, by generating growth, tends to harden environmental policies. The location of polluting industries is important when considering local pollution. But when we look at climate change, it becomes less preponderant (leaving aside ethical issues): greenhouse gases have the same global impact wherever they are emitted. If a high-emitting industry moves from one country to another (which is a form of carbon leakage), it does not affect global climate change as long as its emission intensity remains the same. However, if this industry, by moving to a country where environmental policies are less strict than in its home country, increases its emission intensity, it increases global emissions all the more.
If there is one thing to be retained from the theoretical literature, it is that the mechanisms by which trade affects climate change are complex and multiple. They depend on the characteristics and policies of each country and have ambiguous effects.
The empirical literature quantifies the significance of the effects involved and determines the conditions under which trade has a positive or negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The first empirical studies concerned sulphur dioxide emissions, for which data were more readily available than for carbon dioxide emissions. However, by the early 2000s it was clear that the impacts of trade on emissions depended on the gas under consideration. Articles using estimation techniques that take into account the links between trade, growth and the environment as much as possible find a wide range of results. Frankel and Rose (2005) find no significant effect of trade on CO2 emissions, while Managi (2009) finds a differentiated impact between countries: when trade is liberalized, CO2 emissions decrease in developed countries (the dominant technical effect on scale and composition effects), while they increase in developing countries. Finally, Baghdadi et al (2013) show that differences in CO2 emissions between countries that are signatories to the same free trade agreement are reduced, with the country with the highest emissions coming closer to the lowest emissions when environmental clauses are included in the agreements. Trade does not only have an impact on production-related emissions, but also on those due to freight transport. Such transport can be by land, air or sea, the latter having the lowest emission intensity. Considering that all maritime transport, heavy road vehicles and two thirds of air transport are dedicated to goods, international trade would be responsible for 43% of transport sector emissions, or 6% of global emissions in 2010 (IEA, 2012). However, a strictly local supply does not guarantee lower emissions. Some countries have modes of production that are sufficiently low-emission-intensive for shifting production to them to lead to an overall reduction in emissions, despite the additional emissions from transport. This is the case, for example, of lettuce exported from Spain to the United Kingdom between November and December: its carbon balance (including transport) is better than that of lettuce produced in the United Kingdom (Edwards-Jones et al., 2008). In this case, the issue is the consumption of seasonal rather than local produce.
Finally, trade should not only be considered from the perspective of climate change mitigation, but also from that of adaptation to its effects. Climate change is likely to change the places where certain goods, particularly agricultural goods, are produced. Trade could enable the most affected countries to continue to obtain supplies despite the decline in their production.
Faced with these complex environmental effects, the outcome of trade agreements is uncertain, but it depends largely on the modalities chosen and the accompanying policies. If trade agreements are to help combat climate change, it is necessary to ensure that they effectively enable the wide dissemination of low-emissions technologies by facilitating trade and technical assistance in the sectors concerned. It is also necessary to limit the risks of “leakage” due to differences in regulations between partner countries, which justifies binding environmental clauses. Examples abound of such clauses, but their binding nature remains to be proven. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), signed on 5 November last, is a particularly interesting example in this area, since it contains environmental commitments whose non-compliance can be managed by the agreement’s own dispute settlement mechanism. As the Americans have demonstrated their political will to make these commitments effectively binding, the reality of their effects (if the agreement is ratified) will be a test of the ability of modern trade agreements to play a constructive role in international cooperation on environmental and climate issues. While the commitments made in the SPR relate mainly to fisheries resources, this type of mechanism could indeed be equally applicable to climate change in other agreements under negotiation.
The risk is no longer considered to be external to man, it is man who is at the origin of the risk.
Humans are exposed to heavy metals that are toxic to health, due to the increase in the use of these metals in recent years, which are being introduced into industrial processes and products.
Human exposure to heavy metals is generally in small but daily doses in various components such as food, materials around us, industrial activities… And in rare cases, through chemical accidents that have occurred in factories.
The transformation of heavy metals through human intervention makes it possible to modify the concentration of these heavy metals in industrial and agricultural activities. This transformation makes heavy metals more toxic and harmful to health and the environment.
Among the regulated pollutants are heavy metals, particularly arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead. The other elements individually pose much less of a problem, either because they remain rare in the soil (this is the case for tin, selenium and metals that are sometimes very toxic but of specific use), or because in the forms in which they are found, they are only toxic to humans in exceptional concentrations and the ecosystems adapt to them (this is the case for copper, zinc, nickel, which are essential trace elements, and even chromium).
However, they can be harmful to agrosystems and by transfer to aquatic systems.
The monitoring of heavy metals present in the air is ensured by the association of air quality monitoring, this approach is necessary because these heavy metals represent a danger to human health and the environment because of their non-biodegradability. As a result, they can accumulate in the biosphere and be easily transferred along the food chain to humans.
Any excess of heavy metals in the environment is therefore, in the long term, potentially a risk for future generations.
Concerning the precautionary methods put in place to reduce the risk of exposure to these heavy metals, the first preventive solution aims to limit the risk of salination. If the risks resulting from an already existing accumulation are still present, then in this case, we will start treating the soil and monitor the control and use of this soil. A second solution is to organise the monitoring of exposures and which allows access to the accumulation which must be limited by controlling the cycles of use of heavy metals with the main objective of reducing dispersive uses and practices .
Renewing the indoor air, evacuating pollutants, improving the comfort of the occupants, avoiding the degradation of the building, preventing humidity problems harmful to health, saving heating… The advantages of a well adapted ventilation are legion. An overview of the main systems.
The installation of controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) is essential. In new buildings, it is even a legal obligation. In addition to renewing the air, this system makes it possible to evacuate humidity without opening the windows, thus without letting cold air in. This prevents unnecessary heat loss and saves energy. Especially since some CMVs can blow warm air into the home to increase thermal comfort. It remains to make the right choice.
From the 1970s onwards, new buildings were better and better insulated and therefore more airtight, and single-flow controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) became widespread. Its principle is simple: fresh air enters the dwelling naturally through the ventilation of the facades and windows, then it passes through the so-called dry rooms (living room, lounge, bedroom) and is then evacuated to the outside in the wet rooms (kitchen, bathroom and toilets) through ducts. The electric motor, which extracts the stale air through the roof, is often housed in the attic. Little by little, the technique is improving.
– The humidity sensitive single-flow CMVs are more efficient than the first generation CMVs, because their flow rate adapts to the ambient humidity, thus to the activities in the house (shower, kitchen…).
– The principle of the double-flow CMVs is clever: the air which has circulated in the dwelling heats the new air which enters there, hence an important heating saving. The filtration system for the incoming air also provides a healthier indoor atmosphere, free of certain outdoor pollutants such as pollens. But these units are 30% more expensive (purchase and installation) than single-flow models.
– The thermodynamic double-flow CMV is the most efficient ventilation principle. The incoming air is heated by a heat pump, which results in substantial heating savings. However, the installation is more complicated, more expensive and requires more extensive regular maintenance than for other models.
This system works on the same principle as the single-flow CMV but each wet room has its own extraction unit (motor) installed in each duct. The most recent models are silent and energy efficient. The VMR is particularly suitable for renovation, where the installation of a CMV is difficult or even impossible.
In regions subject to wide temperature variations, the climate sink, also known as the Canadian or Provençal sink, is a solution to be coupled with a CMV. The air, which is captured through an inlet in the garden, then follows a duct buried in the ground (1.5 to 3 m deep), where the temperature remains constant in all seasons. Then the air enters the house through a ventilation system. In winter, it is preheated before being introduced; in summer, it brings a natural coolness. This installation requires excellent professionals.
You now know the different ventilation systems possible mechanics for your housing. It is up to you to make the right choice according to your constraints, your budget and your needs.
To find out about devices that can help you save energy, go here.
Did you know that?
Cooking and washing up produce 1.5 kg of water vapour in your home every day.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a special report on the so-called “land” sector (agriculture, pastoralism, forestry, etc.). What are the issues at stake and what are the main lessons to be learned?
If the summer period is not the most suitable time to attract attention and make an impression, it is worth taking stock of the issues addressed by the report published today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report deals with the interactions between climate change and the so-called “land sector” – which includes agriculture, forestry, pastoralism , etc. – and the land itself.
There are two reasons why this sector is a major issue in the face of climate change and therefore deserves special attention in the conclusions of this report. On the one hand, the land sector is one of the sectors most directly affected by climate change: droughts, floods and heat waves affect plant growth and the use of space, often with direct consequences on food security, terrestrial biodiversity and more generally the provision of ecosystem services. On the other hand, it is a key sector for achieving the decarbonation objectives that will make it possible to keep global warming below 2°C or even 1.5°C. Indeed, it offers both opportunities for carbon storage in ecosystems and biomass as a substitute for fossil carbon (bio-energy, bio-plastics, other bio-materials).
In this context, the report focuses on the interactions between climate change and the land sector through the prism of five main issues: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, land degradation , desertification3 and food security.
Mitigating climate change and its impact in drylands: a vital issue for 40% of the world’s population
The first lesson concerns the interactions between population, climate and the land sector. While the authors rightly point out that the land sector is now responsible for almost a quarter of annual emissions from human activities,4 and that its impact has worsened both in absolute and relative terms (in particular as a result of the intensification of agricultural practices associated with changing diets, which are richer in calories and animal products), they also highlight its very high vulnerability to current and future climate change.
This is particularly the case in drylands, which occupy more than 46 per cent of the world’s land area and are home to 3 billion people (just under 40 per cent of the world’s population), and where the expected impacts of climate change are the most negative, especially in terms of agricultural yields and the occurrence of extreme events. The issue is all the more worrying because, as the authors point out, these are also less developed regions, where opportunities are low.
Faced with these factors, limiting global warming appears to be a vital challenge for a large fraction of the world’s population, which is little or ill-prepared to suffer the consequences.
The land sector has potential for mitigating climate change. For example, three of the four “archetypal” scenarios proposed by the IPCC in its previous special report on the consequences of a 1.5°C warming are based on the extensive development of bioenergy, large-scale reforestation and Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) projects, technology projects that are currently immature, involving the afforestation of large areas with fast-growing forest species to exploit the biomass, burn it to produce energy and capture the CO2 emitted during combustion to crystallize it in stable form5.
However, the second major lesson of the report is to warn that basing the decarbonation of the economy on these large-scale land-use changes is incompatible with the achievement of many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as adopted in New York in 2015.
In particular, the focus is on the pressure on space that would be induced by such land-use changes. Such pressure would have important social consequences, particularly in terms of access to land, as well as environmental consequences, such as the risks linked to a dramatic intensification of agricultural practices and thus to an increased use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, which in turn would pollute the land, air and atmosphere.
In this context, the third and main lesson of this report is that, in order to avoid such large-scale land-use changes, which are likely to have many negative side effects, there is an urgent need to …:
However, the authors point out that the solutions to be implemented depend fundamentally on the context. Thus, while in some regions of the world it will still be possible to intensify agricultural production (i.e. to increase productivity per hectare or per animal) in a sustainable manner, without affecting the productive capacities of agro-ecosystems or biodiversity, this is not the case in areas where agriculture has been highly intensified as in Western Europe and more generally in OECD countries.
Responsible for almost half of greenhouse gas emissions according to the UN, cities face multiple environmental challenges, including energy, water and waste management, air quality and green spaces. Focus on the five most advanced cities in these areas.
It’s no coincidence that Zurich is the first city in the list of the most environmentally friendly cities. The city is rich in green spaces, large forests and a 42 km long lake that supplies the inhabitants with quality drinking water. But in addition to this privileged environment, Zurich has implemented a pioneering approach to fighting climate change: the “2,000-watt society”. The objective? To halve Zurich’s electricity consumption by 2050. In order to achieve this, the city grants a bonus to energy-efficient companies and supports the thermal insulation of buildings. At the same time, it conducts regular operations to raise public awareness of energy savings.
Stockholm has long been committed to environmental issues. The Swedish capital has even been designated Europe’s first Green Capital by the European Commission in 2010. And with good reason: the city has been able to reduce its CO2 emissions by 25% since 1990. It produces only 3.4 tonnes of CO2 per capita, compared to an average of 10 tonnes for other major European cities. In Stockholm, the habit has been established: every major project is preceded by rigorous environmental impact analyses.
Heating and construction of buildings, water and waste management, public lighting, greenways offering an alternative to motorized travel… Geneva is committed to a strategy of “100% renewable by 2050”. Through the signature of a Pact’Air memorandum of understanding, the city is also working to regain air quality by carrying out targeted actions in the fields of heating, urban planning, agriculture, construction sites…. Thanks to an efficient public transport network and targeted awareness-raising actions, the population is increasingly leaving the car in the garage.
Vienna is ranked first in the 2018 list of the best cities to live in, according to The Economist magazine. In addition to vast green spaces, Viennese people enjoy spring water at the tap, green electricity (hydroelectric power stations), an efficient public transport network, including zero-emission buses in the city centre, more than 1,300 km of cycle paths, a fleet of clean cars for hire, etc. Vienna makes extensive use of digital technologies to optimise the operation of these services and has made the Aspern district a demonstrator of intelligent solutions: home automation, geothermal energy, solar panels, sensors on buildings to monitor temperature and air quality…
Germany’s fifth largest city and Europe’s fourth-largest financial centre, Frankfurt enjoys natural areas that account for more than half of the city’s surface area. The city has placed great emphasis on sustainable mobility and is seeking to drastically reduce the share of private motorised transport. It has a “low-emission” zone where the circulation of polluting vehicles is prohibited, limits the number of parking spaces, develops its public transport network and encourages the use of bicycles and electric cars.
Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is becoming a priority for all of us, to save the planet. Focus on carbon offsetting, a global and altruistic solution to fight global warming.
The greenhouse effect is a natural, and even necessary, phenomenon: it keeps the Earth at a temperature favourable to the development of life. However, human activity disrupts this balance. By releasing greenhouse gases, whose consequences on the environment are alarming, we are contributing to global warming.
There are, however, simple steps that can be taken to reduce our CO2 emissions and help save the planet. It may be preferring bicycles to cars, showers to baths… However, industrialisation continues to progress and the population is increasing; it therefore appears complicated to act sustainably to reduce greenhouse gases.
Carbon offsetting is one of the tools for reducing greenhouse gases and combating global warming. It consists of reducing one’s own CO2 emissions through programs to reduce other CO2 emissions around the world. Carbon offsetting is an institutional obligation under the Kyoto Protocol but can also be voluntary. It therefore concerns States as well as companies and individuals.
Everyone, from individuals to governments to businesses, produces carbon dioxide (CO2) which is released into the air – whether for heating, eating, using machines or travelling. This CO2 contributes to increasing the volume of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are the main cause of global warming. The carbon offsetting approach is part of the concrete actions of sustainable development.
Fortunately, the carbon offset system exists! By financing energy efficiency projects in developing areas, entities that emit too much greenhouse gas are awarded “carbon credits”. These allow them to offset their “excess” CO2 emissions.
Companies, individuals, local authorities, etc. can all take part in this approach. Since the regulation of greenhouse gases concerns the entire planet, carbon offsetting is a sustainable initiative that benefits everyone!
A well-insulated home is the key to staying warm, but also and above all to making real energy savings! Here are all our tips.
Boosting the energy performance of your home does not always go hand in hand with a heavy investment. A well-insulated home is also thanks to inexpensive equipment that can significantly improve your comfort, such as a room thermostat that will automatically maintain the chosen temperature, or thermostatic taps on your radiators and insulating film on your windows.
But don’t lose sight of the fact that the first factor in energy savings is the maintenance of your boiler. Regularly visited, it will consume 8% to 12% less energy*. To avoid heat loss, insulate the pipes and the hot water tank if they are in an unheated room. And when the sun is shining, open the curtains wide: the sun’s heat is completely free!
In most older homes, these precautions will unfortunately often prove insufficient. So, if you can, insulate! Starting with the roof, walls and windows, which are the main sources of heat loss in the house. But touching the “envelope” of the house requires choices and, of course, sometimes a significant initial investment.
There is no ready-made answer to this question as it depends on many factors. Therefore, the best thing to do is to go to one of the 450 Info Service Renovation Points (Pris) spread throughout France. There, independent specialists will inform you and advise you free of charge (the simple gestures to carry out, the type of equipment to choose, help, possible loans…) in an individualized way.
Investing in a new boiler, more efficient and less energy consuming, will allow you to make significant savings. What’s more, your installation will pollute less and produce less greenhouse gases. A specialized agency helps you to replace your old boiler by means of an energy bonus, which can be combined with the tax credit and the Eco-loan, allowing you to save up to €600.
Simple to install, there are high-performance devices available to optimise your gas installation. And when you say optimisation, you mean energy savings!
It allows you to determine and regulate the temperature of your home. There are different models: wireless, or with a more or less precise programmer… But all of them are easy to install. By opting for a programmable thermostat, you can choose where, when and how much you want to heat your home, for maximum comfort and energy savings. So you can lower the temperature by a few degrees during the night or if you are away for a few days!
Tip: do not place your thermostat near a heat source so as not to disturb its operation. Ideally, it should be installed in the main room, about 1.50 m from the floor and 20 cm from a door.
As its name suggests, the sensor with which this thermostat is equipped constantly measures the temperature of the outside air, in order to anticipate the weather. Thus, it allows your boiler’s generator to react before your home cools down or warms up! It is ideal for very cold winters or for large houses that are difficult to heat. The average temperature of the boiler decreases throughout the season and its seasonal efficiency is improved.
Tip: place the probe of your thermostat preferably on a north-facing façade.
Placed on the radiators of each room, it regulates the temperature according to the use of the room and makes the most of the free heat input (sunshine). The valves open and close according to the room temperature, to allow more or less hot water to pass through.
A few tips:
– do not place your thermostatic taps in the same room as the room thermostat ;
– if your heating is off, leave the valves open to prevent them from blocking when your boiler is restarted;
– don’t forget to check that they are NF certified.
When the time comes to choose your type of heating, it is sometimes difficult to know which one, natural gas heating or electric heating, is more interesting.
Whether through radiant panels or convectors, electric heating has many advantages:
In addition, it can be used for auxiliary heating, without investing large sums of money. For example, you can see on the But site that there are electric heaters that can be moved at reasonable rates.
Easy to use, it offers the possibility to program the temperature in each room and to remotely control the whole installation. Generally speaking, electric heating is more suitable for small, well-insulated dwellings and second homes.
If gas heating is more expensive to install, you should know that it benefits from the energy transition tax credit. It will easily and advantageously replace an oil heating system that has become obsolete and too polluting.
Gas central heating can also be controlled by thermostats. Controlling the temperature can further improve the feeling of well-being.
Natural gas heating is perfectly suited for a dwelling connected to city gas, which will greatly reduce its cost. Otherwise, a garden or cellar is required to store the storage tank.
The main drawbacks of natural gas heating remain the storage of propane tanks and the lack of price stability, which is currently low but can fluctuate upwards if the price of oil rises.
On the other hand, the price of electricity is a major disadvantage, although it does have advantages. If the house is poorly insulated, electric heating becomes quite expensive.
In conclusion, each type of heating has its advantages. Notwithstanding the danger that gas storage can present, we recommend that it be favoured when renovating a dwelling. A low oil price per barrel and high gas stocks, added to the tax advantage on the installation of condensing or micro cogeneration boilers, make this type of heating financially very interesting.
Any company concerned about profitability must reduce its overheads as much as possible. Heating and other energy costs are a major component of overheads and can have a significant impact on profits in the event of a rise in the price of oil or gas.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to review the ways in which the company can reduce its energy costs and improve compliance with environmental protection standards. Indeed, energy consumption in residential buildings and business premises is responsible for 30% of the emissions of gases that cause the greenhouse effect. As a result, any effort to reduce a company’s energy expenses translates into an increase in its profitability while constituting an act of good citizenship.
For example, a company manager can limit energy wastage by grouping all electrical installations into a single management unit that is responsible for evaluating the optimization of energy consumption in each department. This can help, for example, to avoid duplication of effort that results in consuming twice as much electricity to perform a given task.
Of course, the company must also have the thermal insulation of the real estate it owns evaluated, especially if it has offices in old buildings. The best solution is to have a diagnosis made by a qualified person. If this diagnosis reveals that the company’s offices and warehouses consume a lot of energy, it is advisable to call for tenders from companies specializing in thermal insulation in order to find out the cost of the work that will make it possible to remedy defective thermal insulation. If the work proves too expensive, a move may be necessary.
In addition, the performance of the heating and domestic hot water appliances installed in the company’s offices should always be evaluated, especially if they have not been replaced for a long time. This type of appliance is quickly becoming obsolete due to the constant technological progress of the new models on the market. For example, a company may be able to significantly reduce its heating costs by replacing an old oil-fired boiler with a modern, efficient natural gas boiler.
Finally, as far as retail businesses are concerned, they too need to pay attention to energy consumption. Thus, a person who wishes to open a shop and has a choice between several premises must systematically examine the energy diagnosis of each of them and take this diagnosis into account in making his or her final choice. They may agree to rent premises with a poor energy performance diagnosis if the problems found can be solved at a reasonable cost. Otherwise, it is better to choose a more energy-efficient room.