1 Introduction

There are many negative externalities stemming from our consumption that aren’t being paid for and are being left for future generations to deal with. Some of them are being covered by the governments and producing companies, but far from all. Hence to be able to consume with a clear conscience, an attempt should be made to calculate the residual negative externalities and pay for them individually.

The externalities here covered can be split into 3 sections - Planetary boundaries violated, human rights violated and animal welfare damaged. Calculations are related to the average UK person unless stated otherwise.

This doesn’t deal with how to do the most good, for that turn to Effective Altruism, Giving What We Can, The Life You Can Save or other organisations. This instead deals with accounting what damage each of us is responsible for and offering ways to try to fix that specifically. It is upon each person’s moral framework whether the correct thing is to offset the specific damages they are responsible for, send the same amount of help into the most effective causes, or something different. It is also upon each individual to decide whether all categories problems they should be offsetting themselves for.

2 Negative externalities and their individual offsets

This section calculates the scale of each externality accounted for and the costs of offsetting it for an average UK citizen and lists the donation choices. Where the damage is given as global values, the conversion factor to the average UK citizen is UK per capita GDP over world GDP: $5.23\cdot 10^{-10}$ - unless further details on accountability are given. If unexplained, high and low estimates don’t have any further explanation and are just one half and double the most likely value.

2.1 Planetary boundaries

2.1.1 Climate crisis

UK citizen’s average footprint calculated from consumption is $12tC{O}_2∕year$[1], world average is $4.3tC{O}_2∕year$ and linearly adjusted for UK income is $17.3tC{O}_2∕year$. Hence we get a low, a most likely and a high estimate.

Using data from Gold Standard, the estimates for the cost of offsetting one tonne of $C{O}_2$ are £7.4 (low), £11.1 (most likely) and £12.6 (high). Hence the estimated cost of offsetting is 32£/year (low), 133£/year (most likely) and 217£/year (high).

2.1.2 Ocean acidification

Not considered as it is directly caused by the climate crisis.

2.1.3 Nitrogen and phosphorus cycle

Nitrogen and phosphorus are introduced into ecosystems through fertilisers of which only about 40% is used by the crops and the rest runs off into rivers and ultimately the ocean. The cost of reducing consumption or cleaning up is hard to quantify. As one estimate we take the loss of profit to fertiliser producers caused by a tax imposed to limit consumption. The assumption is that the potential lost profits is the maximum fertiliser producers would spend in lobbying and hence would have to be matched by environmental groups. This is a very approximate calculation but gives us at least an order of magnitude. The global fertiliser market is worth $158B. A 10% tax increase would lead to 1.5% reduction of consumption and most of the cost is born by farmers[3]. The reduction of surplus nitrogen is twice as large as the reduction of usage[4]. The profit margins of the fertiliser industry range from 10% to 70%. Hence we get an estimate of $2.4B to reduce fertiliser use by 10%. We extrapolated nitrogen numbers across phosphorus too since it’s a rather approximate calculation. Should we expect the farmers to join the lobbying but in a less organised fashion, we can take an extreme upper estimate of $10B for a 10% reduction.

As a different estimate we can consider how much fertiliser use would be reduced with one person switching to plant based meat alternatives. The reduction of fertiliser runoff is about 70%[5]. It is likely going to be similar for cell-based meat alternatives. 36% of global arable land is used for animal feed. We are assuming constant fertilisation rate. The average meat consumption in Europe and North America is about twice as much as global average. Hence we get that one European or North American person giving up meat leads to 6.6e-11 reduction in fertiliser use. At $1 per person (see 2.4.1) that leads to $1.5B for a 10% reduction.

There are no charities specialised on reducing fertiliser use so instead ones that have it as one of their activities are chosen - 45% allocation to those. Another 45% goes to charities focusing on reducing meat consumption. The last 10% goes to ones focusing on protecting marine environments as there the damage is greatest. Most likely estimate is 5.8£/year going from the meat-alternatives calculation above. High estimate is 18.3£/year - an average of the 2 higher estimates given above. Low estimate is 2.9£/year.

2.1.4 Freshwater use

We can assume that reducing land usage, fertiliser usage, meat consumption etc. will lead to a reduced freshwater use too. As a basic calculation - 92% of freshwater is in agriculture, 29% of that is in livestock production[6], switching to plant-based meat reduces the amount by 80%[5] - hence we get 5.6e-11 reduction. That gives us an estimate of $1.8B for a 10% reduction. It will likely be less due to interacting offsets.

Freshwater use can be addressed by adopting better practices in agriculture and by reducing meat consumption. The amount needed to reduce meat consumption and hence water usage is used as a high estimate since it is a part of other offsets. Estimates are 1.7£/year (low), 3.4£/year (most likely) and 6.9£/year (high).

2.2 Ozone depletion

Not considered as the ozone layer seems to be recovering.

2.2.1 Deforestation and other land changes

According to Global Forest Watch [7] annual rate of loss of primary forest is 4.3MHa/year (5 year average), and overall net forest loss rate is 14.1MHa/year (approximate 18 year average), giving annual rate of loss of secondary forest is 9.8MHa/year. The 1990-2015 average rate of loss for different types of wilderness was [8]:

Majority of primary forest is tropical (other than that some areas of Siberian and North American taiga are untouched). Primary forest hasn’t been touched by human activity (though that usually excludes native tribes and human-caused mega-fauna extinction millennia ago, which then lead to major biome changes since) and hence cannot be replanted and must be instead protected as is. One of the major drivers of wilderness loss is turning the land into animal pastures, as the land efficiency thereof is much lower than plant farming.

2.2.2 Biodiversity loss

The estimated cost of protecting species is $25.1-76.1 billion annually, with at least $3.41 needed to stop species dieoff. Current spending is at about half the needed amount.[9]

Hence we use estimates of additional funding needed: $3.4 billion (low), $12.6 billion (most-likely), $38.1 billion (high). That then translates into individual offsets of 1.3£/year, 4.9£/year and 14.7£/year respectively. Chosen charities are 40% WILD foundation, 20% Rainforest Alliance and 40% Oceana.

2.2.3 Particle pollution

We are unsure whether this is an area that should be offset as the negative externalities caused by particulates are most commonly local and hence already being addressed by local governments, while globally aerosols are partly offsetting the effects of climate change. Hence for now we will be omitting this issue but will reexamine it in the future.

2.2.4 Chemical pollution

The cost of removing plastics from the ocean once Ocean Cleanup’s system is developed is estimated at about $5 per kg which given the influx would equate to an estimate of $43B per year.

Burning plastics would produce about 2.5kg $C{O}_2$ per kg of plastics[11] - hence the carbon offsetting cost would be $5.5B (based on numbers in section 2.1.1 and counting only discarded plastics) - that will often be less than the methane emissions from landfills but we’ll go with a conservative estimate. The cost of an incineration plant in Europe or US is $1000 or less per a tonne of annual capacity[12] - assuming it runs for 20 years and electricity and heat sales can account for running costs, the cost comes to $7B. Hence a conservative estimate on reducing plastic pollution through building incinerators and offsetting carbon is $12.5B.

From estimates given at various charitable projects on GlobalGiving, upcycling is estimated at $660B[13], supporting recycling and education in Nigeria at $94B[14].

Further estimates are needed - mainly for coastal waste collection, recycling and reducing plastics production.

Then the question of how much we are responsible for comes up. Options are global value distributed equally, distributed by income, or trying to estimate UK values directly. UK per capita annual plastic waste production is 76.5kg (about double the world average) of which 0.9kg is mismanaged and could end in the ocean. We also assume that an extra 2-20% waste is produced in the supply chain and produces oceanward plastic at international average rates.

It seems the most cost effective way to be getting rid of plastic is incineration and carbon offsetting but there aren’t any projects or charities to support in the space, hence those estimates are discarded. Hence we are using the the lower estimate for recycling and the estimate for ocean cleanup. Hence we get low estimate at 2.9£/year, most likely at 6.4£/year and high at 27.3£/year. Chosen charities are 70% OceanCleanup, 20% Environmental Working Group and 10% Sustainable Food Trust.

2.3 Human rights violations

2.3.1 Poverty labour

To deliver the products we buy, many people working in sweatshops and plantations get a wage too low for their families to get out of extreme poverty. To calculate the amount we are directly responsible for through our consumption we can get a first degree estimate by taking how much we pay to each country for imports, how much of that money goes to people in poverty, and how much more would they need to receive to get above the 5.5$ PPP line. We calculate the per-capita missing income from the poverty headcount ratio at $1.90, $3.20 and $5.50 a day.

From that we can directly get an upper estimate by multiplying that value by each country’s population at $923B, dividing it equally by income amongst the world’s population leaves an average Brit with 360£/year, excluding countries above $15000 GDP per capita we get 302£/year. But that doesn’t link accountability to the consumer so to do that we turn to import information. First we need an estimate for how much extra should be paid to each country for each dollar of imports. We have each country’s per capita missing income so we need to calculate how many people the one dollar of imports employs. Since some higher wage people are likely separated from the industry and agriculture, as a most likely estimate we use that the bottom 90% of people are involved in producing exports, with a high estimate being 50% and a low estimate being 100% (because we use the average income of those groups to divide the dollar for imports into a number of people it employs). Hence the calculation of the extra amount that should be paid:

To get a first degree estimate we just multiply the extra rate by the amount of imports from each country. A higher degree estimate would include countries exporting to manufacturing centres and those exporting to the UK. Our guess is that it would increase the amount of imports by about 10% but shift it towards poorer countries so the extra payment might increase by about 50%. Hence we increase the estimates by 0%, 30%, 80% for each estimate respectively.

Chosen charities are focusing on healthcare, education and other ways to fight poverty. Since the goal is to give a missing income to people in poverty, ones with a high level of evidence and directly supporting people in poverty (so for example not to charities researching and advocating macroeconomic levers which could have a greater expected reward but carry more risk and don’t carry the money directly to the people it should (we’re fixing their missing income, not their government’s missing taxes)). Three offsetting choices are given - most needing people, correct country distribution and direct donations. For the first case a subset of charities recommended by Give Well, Effective Altruism, The Live You Can Save and Giving What We Can are chosen. For the second case charities specifically operating in South Africa, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan and Cambodia are added. For the third case only Village Enterprise and Give Directly are included.

The alignment of the ”Correct country distribution” isn’t perfect, compared to the ”Most needing people” it reduces the country distribution error to 43%. Default choice is given as 40-40-20% among the options above.

2.4 Animal welfare damage

2.4.1 Farm animals

Here the calculation is mainly how much does it cost to reduce the world’s meat consumption by one person’s worth. ACE’s recommended charities and cell based meat research have a cost at around 1£/year per person, while plant based meat research is less efficient at about 10£/year [16]. Hence those are used as most likely and high estimates respectively, low estimate is at 0.5£/year. Charities chosen are an equal split between New Harvest (cell based meat) and ACE.

2.4.2 Wildlife

Ethical damage done to wildlife is very hard to quantify so we’ll just assume that it’s a similar amount to farm animals. Chosen charities are 30% WILD Foundation, 10% ACE’s recommended charities, 10% New Harvest, 20% Oceana and 30% Rainforest Alliance.

2.5 Other issues for potential consideration

Below is a list of things that have come to mind as something creating a debt or direct injustice in the society but we haven’t yet been able to quantify or find offsets for. Some are also rather speculative and might not be happening.

2.5.1 Antibiotic overuse leading to resistant bacteria

2.5.2 Risk of biological warfare, nuclear threat and emerging risks

It could be asserted that by developing capability to easily cause massive damage, a debt is being created that the society will eventually pay with interest. Hence individual accounting could also be established for those kinds of risks.

2.5.3 Tax avoidance by multinational companies in developing countries

3 Offset interactions

We can expect that various offsets would interact together - e.g. protecting wilderness also reduces carbon emissions, advocating the use of plant based meat helps both wilderness and emissions. This is something that should be calculated later.

4 Giving through taxes

We expect that the government isn’t doing enough in the areas calculated here. Specifically for planetary boundaries we use the rates at which the situation is deteriorating, so there efforts by governments are already included. For human rights violations and animal welfare damage the picture is less clear. Those might already be offset by aid spending and science grants. That doesn’t mean it’s not a problem, but it’s a problem we might not be accountable for.

References