imperialism is dead. long live imperialism

I noted a few months ago that energy and water are embedded in the products we use and eat, because it takes energy and water to produce them. If we import these products from another country, then to truly account for our environmental impact we need to consider this embodied water and energy. If the energy used to produce something in China is generated using coal, then the product's carbon impact is high, regardless of the source country.

Alex Steffen over at WorldChanging takes this point a step further and calls it climate imperialism. Just like using cheap labour in India to manufacture goods destined for the US, developed countries are using cheap offshore energy to do their dirty work. The planned aluminium smelter at Coega in South Africa is a good example. South Africa has relatively high carbon emissions [via urban sprout], but the country is using low energy prices to attract companies like Alcan.

Where Alex's imperialist argument gets really interesting, though, is in considering the benefits that acrue to developed countries today as a result of their high carbon emissions in the past. To pick on one of the early culprits, it's probably true to say that since before the industrial revolution (history isn't my strong point), the UK has been on a carbon-emitting binge, chopping down forests, digging up coal and generally making a right mess of land, sea and air. Even if they were to cut carbon emissions to zero right now, they would continue to reap the benefits of those past actions.

So isn't it fair to suggest that industrialised countries, even though their emissions may soon be falling, have a lot more to be accountable for than how much they are pumping out now?