A report this week entitled ‘Toxic and Terminal: How the Regulation of Coal-Fired Power Stations fails Australian Communities’ published by the group Environmental Justice Australia claims that “…In almost all cases the emissions limits applied to Australian power stations are significantly less stringent than the standards in the European Union, United States and China.” It also indicates that even these regulations may not be adhered to and that a representative of the Yallourn power station indicated that at times of excessive pollution it ‘simplified’ its reporting by stating that it was emitting at levels that correspond with its licence limits. In addition to this, Reports to the National Pollutant Inventory for some New South Wales power stations appear to be wildly in error.  The report also said that 900,000 people live “dangerously close” to power stations, with their pollution well-documented as causing increased levels of asthma, respiratory illnesses and heart disease.

But that is Australia.  Here, the citizens of the European Union can sit back, content in the knowledge that in the EU the standards are higher, that we value our lives and the well-being of the planet more than does Australia.  Yet is this really the case?  Can we really say that our standards are better?

The economics of the planet today are often referred to as a ‘Global Economy’, an economy in which no market is unaffected by other markets and a place where transportation from one location to another is often cheaper than in-market production.  This situation has given rise to imports and exports which span the globe, and indeed the EU and Australia have become good trading partners: the EU imported goods from Australia worth €13 billion in 2016.  Whilst all of these goods are supposed to meet the relevant EU safety and performance standards in order to be sold, what is the position concerning the manner of production in Australia itself?  If these Australian goods imported into the EU have been produced using methods which are not compliant with EU standards (such as by using electricity from polluting power stations) then how can we truly have any standards?

The very fact that the EU has created standards concerning the production of electricity and the pollution of the environment (probably) means that they believe that anything less than this is unacceptable.  However, in accepting imports from places where these standards are not applied means that the standards are not universal, they are simply applicable for the EU.  It would seem then, that the EU is in effect saying that it thinks that European citizens should not suffer pollution of this level, but quite frankly, if Australians do then that is nothing to do with us.

If we truly believe that there are standards that should be upheld, then surely we believe that these standards should be upheld by and for everybody? It is possibly naive to think that the EU can dictate its standards across the globe; however, I would argue that it is entirely pointless setting standards and yet accepting that goods and services be delivered by means which do not meet said standards.  By accepting goods into the EU produced in such a manner, the EU is condoning the methods of production used. If the EU truly believes that its standards are an appropriate minimum for the protection of the well-being of all, then it should take steps to ensure that any goods or services produced by means which do not adhere to these standards are not imported into the region.  Anything less than this is not only breath-taking hypocrisy, but can also be read to mean that Europeans are more important than Australians (from an EU perspective).

This failure to properly apply its own standards also ignores the fact that environmental impacts may start locally, but can develop into global impacts: the increase of CO² in the atmosphere is not something which will be limited in its impact to only those countries who produce CO².

Here we are discussing the production standards for electricity, however I would argue that standards should not only apply to the means of production, but should also apply to employment law as well.  If there is a maximum number of hours that can be worked in a week, then this should also be applied to the production methods used for all imported goods.  If there is a minimum number of days holiday a year for each employee, a minimum remuneration for maternity…   each and every single standard which the EU applies within its borders should be applied to any producer which wishes to sell in the EU – else the standards do not apply.

By failing to refuse access to the EU marketplace to such goods and services, the EU facilitates a race to the bottom in terms of economic growth, employment law and environmental standards.  For as long as it remains possible to sell in the EU without adhering to these standards, then it will remain economically viable for corporations to impose cheaper, less stringent regulations in another country and simply import into Europe.  The only way to improve standards across the globe is to ensure that your market remains closed to goods and services produced in this manner.

We are often asked as individuals to use our economic power to influence policy – by boycotting companies or products we can register our displeasure.  Yet my ability as a consumer to stop buying a single product is limited to my economic power – so the less disposable income I have, the less is my ability to influence.  The EU registered €603 billion of imports for Goods and a further €248 billion of imported Services in 2016 from just 3 countries (Australia, China and the United States of America), just think the power that can be used if they finally choose to use their economic power and boycott something?