NEU research confirms joint school union tests not met – not safe to start ‘phased return’

The NEU has published a summary of recent scientific papers that clearly confirm that the start of any ‘phased return’ of additional pupils to schools in the UK would be unsafe to staff and risk a ‘second wave’ of infection in our communities.

'Children may be as infectious as adults' 


Scientific knowledge of this new virus continues to grow. However, it seems increasingly certain from the latest research quoted by the NEU that children of school age do play a significant role in the transmission of the virus. As the conclusion of one German study based on an analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load puts it “children may be as infectious as adults”.


At a time when there are still both substantial numbers of infected individuals in our communities and, in turn, non-infected individuals susceptible to the virus, steps that increase the likelihood of transmission would risk a new increase in numbers of infections – and deaths. The NEU research also confirms that opening schools would be a particularly dangerous step to take.


Extending the numbers of children in schools will extend that risk immediately to staff, and then to families of both staff and other children’s families. Those family clusters are likely to then be places where there will be further transmission and damage to public health generally.


As another German study quoted by the NEU explains “Schools are a natural place of contact for the children and teachers … they are also a major location to spread the infection within the municipality”. Its modelling suggested that “if the population still contains a large number of susceptible individuals and sufficient infected individuals, then a selective opening of locations (such as the opening of schools) … can lead to a severe second wave of infection”.


The research also confirms that, as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control puts it, “contact tracing in conjunction with robust testing and surveillance systems, is central to control strategies during de-escalation”. Yet those systems simply will still not be ready – certainly not comprehensively and robustly – for some time yet. 

In short, it is too early to start any ‘phased return’ of schools. Instead, the necessary resources must be found both to put the robust testing and tracing strategies in place and to continue to support children's education through other means, as teachers and schools have done from the start of the 'lockdown'.


Union tests have not been met


The research confirms that the conditions set out by the NEU in its ‘5 tests’ – and then clarified in the joint school union ‘key tests’ have not been reached.


Along with other important points, the joint letter on behalf of TUC-affiliated unions GMB, NAHT, NASUWT, NEU, UNISON and Unite rightly stated that:

·         There must be clear scientific published evidence that trends in transmission of Covid-19 will not be adversely impacted by the reopening phase and that schools are also safe to reopen. The NEU research shows that, on the contrary, the existing evidence shows the opposite.

·     There should be no increase in pupil numbers until the full rollout of the government’s “test, trace and isolate policy”, with testing targets consistently met over a number of weeks and case numbers falling consistently. Again, it is clear that no such full and consistent rollout is yet in place.

·       Governing Bodies and School leadership teams should continue to make decisions to close schools in cases of local outbreaks/upsurge in Covid-19 cases. Schools will need local data as part of the government’s testing and tracing strategy. Not only is the data not yet available, neither are clear protocols in place, as set out in the NEU’s ‘Test 4’: “to test a whole school or college when a case occurs and for isolation to be strictly followed”. These agreed protocols must be set out, resourced and agreed in any risk assessment before any increase in the numbers of pupils on site.

Unions must assess risks based on this research


The fact that children may be as infectious as adults but rarely show serious symptoms, must be taken fully into account when drawing up risk assessments.


Some returning children – and staff - will be carrying the virus without showing any symptoms such as a fever or cough. That’s why it is not sufficient to rely on detecting symptoms such as temperature readings nor to only test and isolate children or staff showing symptoms. 


As NEU ‘Test 3’ sets out, schools will need to have arranged “comprehensive access to regular testing for children and staff to ensure our schools and colleges don’t become hot spots for Covid-19”. It would be unsafe to restrict that regular testing only to those with symptoms.


In discussing the role of testing in Covid-19 control, an Imperial College report quoted in the NEU Research states, in the context of health care workers, that weekly screening of all staff, including those without symptoms, would be significant in preventing onward transmission. 


A similar approach needs to be adopted for school staff, with resources provided for trained health staff to be carrying out regular testing of all school staff. In turn, those test results should be linked to the protocols in place for contact tracing and isolation of close contacts, which might have to include school closure, as set out in the joint union letter above.


Regular testing of children may be more difficult to carry out as nasal swabbing can be uncomfortable and upsetting if carried out properly. However, children could certainly be included as social contacts of staff that test positively, and as part of contact tracing protocols that include their families. 


Of course, there are many other issues that will also need to be considered in detailed risk assessments. Because of aerosol transmission in confined spaces, it cannot be assumed that PPE is only required by staff in specialist settings. Risk assessments must also cover scheduling of regular cleaning of surfaces and hand washing, for example.


Above all, if the Government or employers proceed to try and increase pupil numbers through a ‘phased return’ leaving staff to work in unsafe conditions, then rights under Section 44 of the ERA 1996 must be understood and implemented. These rights are set out in the leaflet produced by ‘Socialist Party in Schools’, although the content is transferable for wider trade union use.

Why we must have 'find, test, isolate and care' in place to safely end the lockdown

There is a growing scientific consensus that successful management of the Covid-19 crisis requires a comprehensive plan combining mass testing, contact tracing and supported isolation of potentially infected individuals. But a managed plan of action is precisely what chaotic capitalism is struggling to achieve.

Medical science was already well aware that contact tracing has to be a key part of any strategy to tackle a viral epidemic, particularly where no vaccine is yet available. It is a technique already proven to work when tackling Ebola, MERS and SARS for example.

The strategy is simple enough to understand. If you can quickly identify the close contacts of someone who is found to be infected, and then make sure that all these individuals are safely isolated, onward transmission of the virus is hopefully prevented. If this is done consistently, most new cases can be identified, isolated and the outbreak eventually brought under control.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA

Of course, what works medically also has a social and economic cost too. Who pays to look after the income and welfare of the isolated individuals and their dependants for, in the case of Covid-19, what might need to be at least 14 days in isolation? Their jobs and income must be guaranteed, or the strategy will fail to operate successfully. Similarly, resources have to be in place for food deliveries and other practical support to those who need it in order to remain isolated.

How is contact tracing itself going to be carried out? Hopes are being placed in the development of tracing apps that could use smartphones to alert people that they have potentially been infected by someone who has been close to them. But, even if they prove reliable, many, particularly the eldest and worse off, may not own the kind of phones needed. Fears about privacy will also need to be addressed for take-up to be sufficiently high - perhaps requiring 60% of the population - for such a system to work.

So, in addition to tracing apps, mass recruitment of contact tracers is going to be needed. Some of the work can be done remotely though ‘phone interviews, some may require direct visits with adequate PPE. All will need to be properly trained and paid for this important role. Matt Hancock announced the recruitment of 18,000 tracers but, once again, without the necessary urgency and clarity. Once again, the inability of the Tories and capitalism to apply a clear strategy is being exposed.

For an infection like Covid-19, where some proportion of infections, if not yet one reliably known, are passed on from people without obvious symptoms, mass testing is also vital.

It’s not good enough to set up random access to headline-grabbing testing centres that take hours to get to, with the risk that carriers spread the virus as they travel there. We need community testing properly integrated into an overall strategy, firstly to identify individuals who have the virus and then to test their traced close contacts. If this could be done in sufficient numbers, and with sufficiently reliable tests, this could alleviate some of the isolation requirements. Of course, it might also identify individuals who actually needs hospitalisation rather than just isolation.

Given the nature of the virus and uncertainty over immunity, testing will need to be regularly repeated, not just a one-off. That requires an increase in capacity certainly far greater than the UK’s present 25,000 tests a day, but also far more than the 100,000 tests promised by Hancock.

Of course, identifying carriers and contacts quickly is one thing, ensuring they then isolate themselves is another. Contact tracing is not the ‘quick-fix’ that some sections of big business seem to think it is. For it to work, employers need to understand that some of their workforce may well receive a message to say that they need to quickly isolate themselves. They need to be assured they can do so without loss of income.

World Health Organization advice 140420

If, as in the case of schools, health, transport, construction and so many other sectors, work is being carried out without adequate social distancing and PPE, the risk of being a close contact of an infected person increases significantly.

Workplaces may have to close altogether. Bluntly, unless workplace safety is put ahead of short-term profits, the outbreak cannot be properly managed.

Of course, if these necessary measures had been carried out earlier, then it wouldn’t now be so difficult to repair the damage. In mid-March (see video below), the Cheltenham festival went ahead and pubs and schools stayed open, all while Johnson claimed the ‘science’ didn’t prove further steps were needed.

In reality, the evidence from China and other countries that had already been battling the infection, already showed what was needed. There, early application of contact tracing and testing was used to isolate the outbreak to more manageable hotspots. Here, Tory delay means that it will take a lot longer for a similar strategy to work. However, it is the only realistic approach to ending the lockdown safely.

Update 3/5/20:

The Five Tests 'twitterstorm' tonight helped raise the profile of the NEU's demands - but I did get comeback from someone who thought we were trying to just stop schools re-opening altogether. When I explained our demands further, he supported what we were saying - but just thought it was impossible to get the testing done on that scale.

We have to explain that, it IS possible, and it's also necessary - and urgently so. As this article explains, written by a former GP, "a national plan is needed, drawn up by NHS, university, biotechnology and other workers through their trade unions, to mobilise all the resources needed for a huge increase in testing".

I was also pleased to get a chance on LBC last night to make the case for 'find, test, isolate and care'  - and for the NEU's 'five tests' (which are very much in line with that WHO advice). You can hear what I had to say here:

No re-opening schools until outbreak under control, mass testing in place and union agreement reached on safe working practices

A campaign is being waged  by sections of the press and big business to ‘re-open the schools’. We need to resist it.

Yes, there are growing pressures on the incomes and well-being of many in our communities while the lockdown continues. But the pressure to get schools fully open isn’t driven by concerns about welfare or education. They just want childcare in place so they can earn their profits again, never mind the risks to their workforce.

Download and share via https://bit.ly/34Nj0ce 

Re-opening schools now would be a major risk to public health - and to staff and their families too.

World Health Organization advice is clear that an ‘exit’ shouldn’t take place until Covid-19 transmission is under control. The UK isn’t even yet at the ‘peak’ of the outbreak, let alone getting cases and death rates down to a controlled number.

Secure social distancing simply isn’t possible in a school environment. We’ve all seen that many adults can’t manage it consistently in a supermarket, let alone children in a classroom!

Opening schools would inevitably mean the spread of the virus being increased again. Yes, few children would show symptoms, but they would be spreading it on the bus home, back to their parents and grandparents. The poorest families, those with the worst overcrowding   at home, would be most at risk.

Any genuine ‘exit strategy’ depends on government correcting its failure to deliver on mass testing first.

Again, WHO advice makes clear the necessity of first having existing cases under control so that new clusters can then be quickly identified and isolated through immediate testing and tracing of contacts of those carrying Covid-19.

So school staff and unions should bluntly make clear to politicians calling for schools to open: “we’ll happily do so when you’ve done your job first - get mass testing in place!” 

The press and politicians calling for schools to open don’t seem to understand that most schools haven’t closed completely in the first place.

Staff have been supporting vulnerable pupils and children of key workers in schools and hubs, even over the Easter break. They have also been working from home to give online support.

Generally, perhaps an indication that parents understand the health risks more than those rashly calling for rapid re-opening, the numbers in schools have been lower than expected. But, even then, the experience of rota working has confirmed that returning to working again with full classes is not straightforward.

* What situations create risks where PPE is needed - not least in special schools and nurseries?
* Can social distancing measures be put in place to reduce risks?
* Is adequate cleaning provision in place, both regularly during and at the end of the day, but also after confirmed infections?
* How will counselling and other health advice be provided to students and staff who need it?
* Will staff & pupils be fully tested?            

* Will full pay be in place for those living with vulnerable relatives so they can remain safely off site?

 

No member of staff should be working in a school unless these questions have answers - and ones negotiated and agreed with staff trade unions - both nationally and, in detail, on a local and workplace level too. If staff feel unsafe, unions must back members leaving their workplace if risks aren’t addressed.

Finally, when we do go safely back, let’s also demand that we return to a better education system than before. Scrap Ofsted (and Estyn in Wales), SATs and league tables for good, teach a broader curriculum, end cuts and performance pay, get rid of the privatised agencies that have been ripping off supply staff. Above all, build strong unions to protect staff, school students and education!

This article was written after discussion by members of the Socialist Party working in schools across both the NEU and UNISON. For latest analysis, visit: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/

Supply educators need back up from all their Union colleagues

Given the health risks facing school staff, and our school communities, it has been absolutely correct to close schools to all but a minority of pupils. However, school closures have left supply educators – teachers and TAs – at serious financial risk. Most have been told that their services will no longer be needed.

The vulnerability of staff who rely on uncertain work and the goodwill – or otherwise – of private agencies and umbrella companies has been sharply exposed. When this crisis is over, then there has to be a concerted drive to organise directly-employed supply pools and put an end to this privatisation of supply cover.

As last term ended, details of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme were just being released. But, as yet, not all agencies have even guaranteed that they will use the scheme to at least provide ‘furlough pay’, based on 80% of previous earnings, to their agency supply staff. Even if they have, it's not yet at all clear how quickly the HMRC will start to process applications once its portal opens on 20 April.

Many supply staff therefore still don’t know whether they will get furlough pay at all and, if they do, how much their weekly income will be. Some have, out of financial necessity, applied for Universal Credit instead.

Even if successful, ‘furloughing’ still means a cut in income. For staff such as agency TAs, even 80% of full earnings is still a worrying cut to an already low income.

So, although ‘furloughing’ can provide an important ‘backstop’ for agency staff, particularly those who had no firm commitments for work next term, that must not be the starting point for union activists to defend their supply colleagues.

Why should supply colleagues be left facing wage cuts when most other school staff have had their salaries protected during school closure? Why are schools, MATs and Local Authorities trying to make savings at the expense of the supply staff that they would have already budgeted for hiring over the term ahead?

Even the Government has said in its advice on the Job Retention Scheme, “where employers receive public funding for staff costs, and that funding is continuing, we expect employers to use that money to continue to pay staff in the usual fashion”.  The Local Government Association has also warned employers that staff covered by the Agency Workers Regulations may legally “be entitled to be paid”.

Supply staff mustn’t be left to battle for their incomes alone. Nor can this just be taken up as ‘casework’. We need a bold campaign at every level of the Union to demand employers and agencies act as they should, acknowledging those who do the right thing, but exposing those who don’t.

Branches and Districts need to immediately get in contact with their supply members, offering support and finding out which local schools and agencies need pressure applied to them.

School reps should urgently contact their Head to insist that they stand by supply staff who have been working at the school. School NEU groups should demand that they are paid fully and included in the rotas and other teaching arrangements that have been set up during school closure.

An appeal from supply educators for urgent support

I am one of many agency staff who have been told that our services are no longer needed because of the closure of school and colleges during the coronavirus lockdown. 

Of course, once laid-off, the chances of any of us finding work as teachers or TAs over the next few months are also slim. If unfairly denied continuing employment alongside the rest of our colleagues in schools, we will be left having to pursue agencies and umbrella companies to win 'furlough pay'. Even if successful, that still means a cut in income for many weeks ahead.

To explain the situation, I am posting the letter below which was drafted following an online meeting of members of the NEU Supply Network yesterday and sent to the NEU General Secretaries:

Update: Also read here: 

http://www.mpdnut.com/2020/04/supply-educators-need-back-up-from-all.html

Dear Kevin and Mary,

Following the Union’s “Town Hall” meeting on Monday, members of the NEU Supply Teachers Network held a further Zoom Conference this afternoon and agreed that we should write to you before your Q&A meetings with the Executive and District Officers this week.

We know that you will recognise that Supply educators, teachers, cover supervisors and TAs, are some of the NEU members that have been placed in the greatest employment difficulty by the closure of schools during the present crisis. The vulnerability of staff who rely on uncertain work and the goodwill – or otherwise – of private agencies and umbrella companies has been sharply exposed.

We are asking that the Union makes the defence of supply educators one of its key priorities over the weeks and months ahead. A bold campaign led by the Union, both nationally and by Districts and Branches, can help make sure that supply staff are not left without continuing employment, nor left facing substantial cuts in their income.

We are grateful for the efforts that have been made to confirm with the Government, that supply agencies are eligible to make claims for ‘furloughing’ through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. This should provide an important ‘backstop’ for agency staff, who are without any firm commitments for employment after Easter and who now face day-to-day hiring drying up completely.

Regrettably, as the Union will be aware through calls to the Advice Line and Local Officers, in the absence of the full legislation, many agencies are still not confirming whether they are prepared to support staff claiming through the scheme. Some have categorically said they will not or, in the case of some umbrella companies, that they will make payments based on the minimum wage. For staff such as agency TAs, even 80% of full earnings is still a worrying cut to an already low income.

The Network is concerned that the present strategy is not working. ‘Furloughing’ should not be our first port of call when, certainly for staff on long-term assignments, schools will already have budgeted for paying the costs of agency staff for next term. Instead of treating supply staff inequitably, the Union should demand schools continue to employ them fully and involve them in rotas, distance learning and other temporary arrangements just as they are asking other members of staff to do.

The Government says in its advice on the Job Retention Scheme, “where employers receive public funding for staff costs, and that funding is continuing, we expect employers to use that money to continue to pay staff in the usual fashion”. The fact that this position should also extend to agency workers, at the very least those covered by the Agency Workers Regulations, is also highlighted in the LGA advice that “in many cases this means that agency workers will be entitled to the same rate of pay as a comparable employee, so if a comparable employee is being paid during the school closure period, then the agency worker may be entitled to be paid”.

We therefore ask that you urge the Secretary of State to make clear that schools should be continuing to pay supply staff in full. He should also make clear that, for those staff where furloughing is the only option, agencies are expected to meet their responsibilities and furlough staff based on the highest possible earnings.

We also ask you to call on the Executive and District and Branch Officers to support a campaign to publicise these demands and to pressurise and expose employers and agencies who fail to stand by supply staff at this time of national crisis. A letter should be sent to every school, and NEU rep, setting out the Union’s expectations and seeking the support of school groups in winning them.

Yours Sincerely,
Niall Bradley
Chair, NEU Supply Teacher Network

Covid-19: A short video to explain exponential growth using the latest UK data

I've compiled a short video to:
* explain the mathematics behind exponential growth
* compare how well the latest data (for Covid-19 deaths in the UK) fits an exponential growth curve

* describe what can be done to "flatten the curve" - and what that means mathematically.

Watch it on YouTube here:

There's also a follow up here from 31/03/20 with, by request (!) some more about logarithms, then going on to say more about using log graphs to test for exponential growth and then using that to show that growth rates are hopefully now starting to fall in Italy and Spain.

And there's a third video below, posted on 04/04/20. This one looks at:
* The equation that helps model the 'S-curve' when an exponential curve flattens out and reaches a maximum limit
* How the growth in Covid-19 in the UK compares with Italy and Spain - two countries a week or two 'ahead' of the UK in their death statistics.

Here's a fourth video, posted on 10/04/20 that looks at:

* What is meant by 'reaching the peak' of the logistic growth curve - but warns that this will still be a good way from the end of the crisis;

* Uses the revised daily death data for England to estimate some key variables more precisely and uses them to model a simplified growth curve based on those numbers.

Here's a fifth video examining the difficulty in analysing data from the UK and shows:
* How the official daily announcements of deaths have substantially underestimated the actual numbers per day

* How using maths - and comparisons with real data from a country like Italy - can help unpick the confusion - although still leaves plenty of uncertainty about exactly how quickly cumulative totals will continue to grow over the days and weeks ahead

Can the capitalist system really solve the climate crisis?

At the time I wrote this article just a few short weeks ago, climate change seemed to be the issue that most glaringly exposed capitalism's inability to deal with a global crisis. Now, of course, Covid-19 has exposed its failures on a much more rapid timescale.

Both crises have laid bare how the capitalist nation state and production for private profit have to be urgently replaced by the building of a socialist world. 

Self-isolation and social distancing perhaps mean more people than usual have time on their hand to read at present - so please see what you make of this article - carried in the upcoming edition of Socialism Today, the monthly magazine of the Socialist Party (England and Wales)

On the climate strike, Liverpool, September 2019

Pricing out greenhouse gases?

In 1997, the Kyoto protocol established the setting of a price for carbon as capitalism’s solution for reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, in order to prevent a critical increase in global temperatures. The treaty was meant to establish a global market for trading carbon permits that, through the magic of the market, would incentivise individual nations and companies to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and invest in low-carbon alternatives.

The preferred market model at the outset was an international cap-and-trade system. The idea was that countries would be set a limit on emissions totalling an overall global cap. If one nation – or a business given its own limit by a government – wanted to exceed its cap, it would have to buy additional emission rights from the carbon market. If it managed to reduce emissions beneath the cap, it could sell the unused allocations on the market as well.

The plan was that the overall cap would be reduced gradually, leading to a phased reduction in greenhouse gases over time. Over twenty years later, it is self-evident that the market mechanisms proposed in Kyoto have completely failed to prevent continued global warming.

Competition not co-operation

The latest scientific data show that all key indicators of climate change are worsening. Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to rise rapidly. Glaciers and ice sheets are retreating. Global temperatures and sea levels continue to rise, as does the frequency of extreme weather events.

Far from the situation improving, the pace of global warming is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. Capitalism has launched us on a catastrophic trajectory that is forecast to see global temperatures rising to 3.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Unless reversed, that would mean irreversible tipping points are reached that result in permanent catastrophic change for humanity.

Climate change is, of course, a global problem that demands global co-operation and planning. Kyoto, and all the climate summit failures since, have shown without doubt that capitalism cannot meet that demand. A world made up of competing nation states and economic blocs was never going to agree on a global cap and carbon price that could really tackle global warming with sufficient urgency.

How could such a cost be meaningfully arrived at in the first place? It would require setting a price on the effects of fixing climate change now and into the future. That cannot be done through the capitalist market where, in practice, decisions are largely dependent on political compromises allowing agreements to be stitched together between nations with competing short-term economic interests.

Capitalism’s inability to overcome these national differences was glaringly obvious in the fact that neither China’s regime nor the USA administration adopted binding targets after 1997. Yet these two nations alone accounted for 44% of the world’s CO₂ emissions in 2018.

The US refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty. US capitalism was not prepared to weaken its economic position by adopting measures that could undermine its profitability, particularly the influential big coal and oil interests. Later, Canada also withdrew from Kyoto on similar grounds. It had committed to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below its 1990 levels by 2012, but by 2009 its emissions were 17% higher.

US capitalism argues that it cannot be expected to take on the economic costs of a global problem unless its economic and strategic rivals commit to do the same, not least China. In 1997, China was still classed as a ‘developing country’ and was, therefore, exempted from Kyoto targets. Now, however, it is the world’s biggest net emitter of greenhouse gases, although not per head of population. In turn, China’s regime argues that it should not have to pay the cost for a problem first created by imperialist countries.

The tensions between global competitors will remain a major stumbling block in reaching any global agreement on a capitalist basis.

Market failure

As a result, despite all the climate summits and the mounting evidence of accelerating climate change, no single global market has been created and 80% of greenhouse gases are still not covered by any price. Nonetheless, some markets were set up, most notably, the Emissions Trading System (ETS) established by the European Union in 2005.

Yet the ETS has shown the limitations of such a market mechanism. Rather than make businesses pay for their allowances, the ETS distributed credits to them freely. Global recession in 2008 then resulted in reduced demand leaving many firms well beneath their allocated caps. So, rather than driving genuine change, the unused credits generated windfall profits for shareholders.

Even if operating as planned, however, a market based on one region cannot resolve a global problem. While the EU has cut its carbon emissions, particularly from burning coal, those reductions have been counteracted by importing goods from other regions, particularly China, where emissions are increasing.

As the big-business-sponsored Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) points out: “Even in regions with established carbon pricing initiatives and declining territorial emissions, such as the European Union, the overall carbon footprint has actually increased in certain years, when accounting for the (consumption-based) CO₂ emissions embodied in internationally traded goods”.

The EU claims that the carbon content of imports is now falling. However, its calculations are based on the assumption that “imported products are produced with production technologies similar to those employed within the EU-28” member states – 27 now, of course, with Brexit. In reality, most will have been produced in economies reliant on higher greenhouse emissions.

European big business has also complained that it has been difficult to plan investments because of uncertainty about the level of carbon pricing. As with any traded market, carbon prices within the ETS have varied widely. In recent years the EU has intervened to reduce the supply of emission allowances. That has driven up the carbon price which now stands at around $25 a ton. That is a significant increase on the period between 2012 and 2017 when, in the wake of the global recession, the price fell beneath $10 per ton. Before that, in 2007, an excess of supply over demand had seen the carbon price during the pilot phase of the ETS collapse, effectively, to zero.

Offsetting or greenwashing?

A similar crash in prices torpedoed another market mechanism set up as part of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM was an ‘offset’ programme that allowed industrialised countries to turn their support for greenhouse emissions reduction projects in a developing country (mainly China, in practice) into a credit that allowed them to exceed their own emissions targets.

In the face of market uncertainty following the global recession, CDM credit prices fell beneath $1 and led to the mechanism’s complete collapse. The ongoing wrangle over whether unclaimed CDM credits might still be honoured as part of a new global offset scheme was one of the sticking points that could not be resolved at the latest climate summit, COP25 in Madrid, last December (see: Bad Cop, Socialism Today No.235, February 2020). It is far from clear how much genuine offsetting occurred under the CDM and how much proved to be merely an accountancy exercise allowing big business to get around emissions limits while proclaiming its ‘green’ credentials.

Moreover, the profiteering inevitable under capitalism has been exposed in some of the ‘voluntary’ offset programs that have also been created. Forestry offset projects, where businesses have claimed to be supporting reforestation programmes in return for continued greenhouse gas emissions, have been particularly criticised. It is rarely clear whether a forest has really been conserved and whether any protection is ongoing.

A recent Daily Telegraph investigation suggested that much of the deforestation offsetting backed by companies like British Airways, easyJet, BP and Shell achieves little beyond greenwashing their reliance on fossil fuels. It quoted Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, explaining that “what customers aren’t told is that this market is an unregulated Wild West, and there’s little evidence that offsetting schemes generally work”.

The Telegraph report concluded that “the solution is a properly regulated market” – not necessarily a conclusion shared by the proprietors of this right-wing, Tory-supporting newspaper! But how can one set of profiteers be trusted to regulate other profiteers? Working-class oversight, through the democratic public ownership of industry and finance, is the only way to ensure the future of the planet.

‘Leakage’ to economic rivals

The lack of a global agreement increases the risk that any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions made in one part of the world would be undermined by greater emissions elsewhere. Some capitalist economists are raising the danger of carbon ‘leakage’ where, rather than being ‘incentivised’ towards lower carbon production, a multinational operating in an area covered by a carbon market could simply opt to move production to another region that is not. In reality, of course, these commentators are not only concerned with global emissions, they also fear the hit to profits that could result.

Economists further warn that capitalist supply and demand could have other unintended consequences if, for example, the oil price falls as more industries move to sustainable energy resources. That might then drive up oil consumption in areas without a carbon limit.

They also discuss the risk that goods produced more cheaply in countries without the overheads of a carbon tax or cap could gain a competitive advantage over their rivals who do. This is a particular concern for energy-intensive sectors like steel, aluminium and cement. For example, when Arcelor Mittal announced cutbacks to its steel production in France and Germany last year, it cited rising carbon prices as part of its reasoning.

The capitalists operating in those sectors are pushing for the threat to their competitiveness to be countered by ‘border carbon adjustments’, essentially, additional tariffs levying a domestic carbon price on imports from jurisdictions that do not price carbon. However, other capitalist interests oppose measures that risk adding to protectionism and a reduction in world trade. These conflicting interests are only going to diverge further in the face of a new world downturn.

Raising the global carbon price

Up to now, the risks posed to corporations and nation-state economies through localised carbon markets have not been particularly significant because prices have been kept at such a low level. Globally, the IMF estimates they average no more than $2 a ton of CO₂. However, in turn, there is also general agreement among capitalist economists that carbon pricing, therefore, has failed to address climate change in the way that their market-driven theories had envisaged.

A section of capitalist economists recognise that their market-based solutions require carbon prices to increase substantially. In the face of the damning evidence that urgent action is needed, it has fallen on the IMF to carry out an analysis to estimate how high global carbon prices would need to be set.

The 2015 Paris accord agreed an international goal of at least preventing global temperatures increasing beyond 2°C above pre-industrial levels – without any binding targets to achieve it! Climate scientists have since warned that 2°C is too high to avoid severe consequences and that even deeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts and swifter action are required. Nevertheless, the IMF decided to calculate what global carbon price would be required to meet that Paris goal, concluding that it required a rapid increase to $75 a ton of carbon dioxide by 2030.

The IMF is not alone in concluding that such a steep carbon price increase is necessary. In 2017, the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, chaired by economists Joseph Stiglitz and Lord Nicholas Stern, also concluded that carbon needs to be priced between $40-80 by 2020, then rise to $50-100 by 2030, to achieve the Paris target. Of course, 2020 has already arrived, so this remains another recommendation where international capitalism is showing itself to be incapable of even acting on its own advice.

Can a capitalist solution be found?

Clearly, capitalists will never accept that their system is the problem. Instead, acting through bodies like the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, they continue to try and find a global market-based solution. The CPLC claims the backing of 34 national and sub-national governments, including the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Canada. It is also supported by over 160 businesses, including BP, Shell, Nestlé, Siemens, Unilever and other major firms. Its conclusions offer a good idea of how capitalism thinks it might yet manage an “orderly transition to a low-carbon resilient global economy”.

Instead of questioning capitalist methods, the CPLC maintains that the market can still provide a solution, just as long as carbon prices are applied globally at the high levels recommended by the IMF. At the same time, it acknowledges business concerns about “the potential for international competitors to have an unfair advantage if they do not face a similar carbon price”. It offers reassurance that these fears are exaggerated and that other variables, such as wages and corporate tax rates, can be adjusted to “alleviate competitiveness concerns”. In other words, the costs can be passed on to the working class, and profits can be protected!

Of course, if that does not work and profits are threatened, the pure ‘free market’ can be put to one side. The CPLC recommends “temporary or partial exemptions for certain specific industries or regions competing heavily on a global scale”. So, in the final analysis, the requirement for short-term profit outweighs its faith in the ability of the market to solve climate change.

The conditional support for a carbon price hike is evident in the responses from big business on the CPLC website. For example, Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council, agrees that “carbon pricing is a crucial tool”, but “best would be a global carbon price for all”. For now, however, it says that, “as regions implement climate policy at different speeds… measures to overcome the impact on competition can and should be part of a carbon pricing scheme”. Meanwhile, Michelin’s chief executive commented that the “Michelin Group has always been in favour of pricing carbon”, on condition that “the system is transparent, rewards best performers, and ensures a level playing field worldwide”.

Capitalism is searching for an agreement that cuts greenhouse gas emissions while protecting existing big-business interests from being undercut by global competitors. But that’s simply beyond its means. The higher the price set for carbon, the more big businesses will plead for special protection to safeguard their profits. The more exemptions that are agreed, the lower the carbon price will be, driven down by the market.

A solution can only be achieved through a socialist global plan, motivated by the joint interests of the world’s workers and poor in reversing climate change, rather than the short-term profit motives of capitalism.

Carbon taxes

World capitalism’s initial preferred mechanism for applying carbon pricing was a cap-and-trade system that set a ceiling on global emissions. Now, given the glaring failure of the Kyoto protocol, capitalist economists are increasingly backing an alternative approach: applying carbon taxes directly to households or businesses. It was on this basis, having tried to determine the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, that the IMF arrived at its figure of $75 a ton.

In practice, it has been estimated that a carbon tax levied at that level could see the price of, for example, natural gas – still widely used for power generation and household use – increasing by 70% on average. But what effect would that have on both the production costs for capitalism and the living standards of workers?

Supporters of taxation measures point to Sweden – where a carbon tax of $140 per ton has been levied – as reassurance that it would not hold back economic growth. Its introduction was combined with a reduction in income tax to offset the effect on individual household income. An expansion of district heating networks also meant that most homes no longer rely on buying in their own fuel. Electricity generation from fossil fuels has been cut through the expansion of alternatives, including hydropower, biofuels and wind energy. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 26%, although they remain high in the transport sector.

Nonetheless, applying a carbon tax to a developed economy with the resources to invest in alternative technology would not translate so easily into a global model. Moreover, the carbon tax is facing growing opposition within Sweden, particularly in rural areas where workers rely on cars for transport. Economists have also pointed out that, as emissions fall, the income generated by the carbon tax falls with it. The Swedish government is now investigating introducing a per-kilometre road tax to generate further income. Once again, workers will foot the bill rather than big business.

Because energy costs make up a greater share of the budget of low-income families, a carbon tax will inevitably fall hardest upon the working class. But as discussed already, significant carbon taxes will also face resistance from big business and governments worried about being undercut by rivals without the same overheads. These concerns will grow sharper as the tensions between different trading blocs increase against the background of world economic slowdown. International efforts to find a capitalist solution based on a global price on carbon dioxide emissions will undoubtedly continue. They will also continue to fail to reach any meaningful agreement.

The serious thinkers of capitalism are only too aware that climate change is an existential threat that needs urgent action. Their proposals, however, are always constrained by the limits of the system they defend. Without addressing the twin barriers of the nation state and the profit system, their market-based solutions have not – and cannot – succeed. Capitalism is incapable of taking the united international action needed to reverse climate warming. Only a system change that replaces it with a global socialist plan can achieve that urgent goal.