Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Poverty vs. Environment

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Does anyone ever get the feeling that the environment and poverty are two problems that seem to call for completely opposite solutions. Charities like Oxfam, for example, will point to the Common Agricultural Policy as extremely damaging to the third world's ability to trade on an even playing field (and America have similar subsidies). But then from an environmental perspective, it would be insane to buy products that can be grown in Europe from half way around the globe? And so environmentally, there is a case to be made for financial incentives for people to choose local produce. Does anyone else get this feeling? Buy your wine from Chile: help the poor. Buy it from France: help the environment.

Incidentally, I'm not claiming that the CAP was ever about the environment, but one could imagine a similar scheme being created based on environmental impact.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the CAP makes us massively over produce things which would be better produced elsewhere, and it allows things like tinned tomatos to be cheaper in Ghana than locally grown fresh.

    If wine or other non-perisable goods are grown elsewhere without the need for strong fertilisers or lights then they can be better even if they are then shipped to us. New Zealand butter for example, because the cows can be outside virtually all the time and just eat grass rather than intensive feed even with the boat ride it produces less CO2 than English butter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't there also the inevitable problem in what trade actually does for the poor in developing areas. There's been made of the fact that whilst China is producing so much it mainly does so for multi-national companies who keep a large majority of the profit - if more of that profit went to the people involved in the production it may also allow less to be made for more. In principal wouldn't the result be helping the poor with a great profit share and helping the environment by reducing the level of individual production?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Capitalism and trading have never been the solution to poverty. In fact, many would argue they are the main cause of it. Things are not exactly rosy for 3/4 of the world's population under capitalism. That might have also been the case before capitalism existed, but its arrival certainly hasn't provided any relief for most of those in poverty.

    So I'd say poverty and the environment can actually go hand in hand. We can be as green as possible and still try to eradicate poverty efficiently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    free trade is the only way to bring countries out of poverty (and proper free trade is fair - currently our free trade isn't free and our fair trade isn't fair)

    Multi-nationals provide massive funding into countries - both in infrastructure, wages and exchange of technology/ideas. That money is reinvested in the country - employing people (both directly and indirectly) and in taxation. A small amount (typically about 10-20%) is taken out in profits, but that's insignificant compared to the money pumped in by the MNC being there.

    It also acts as a catalyst for home-grown industries - as the money from wages allows investment and the skills which are transfered can be succesfully applied to the creation of local businesses.

    Trade has been a massive enricher for people's lives - not just in wealth, but in the range of products we can buy. It binds countries together and makes wars between them less likely (as it's better to trade for the resources than invade for control of same).

    I honestly can't believe that in the beginning of the 21st century people believe anything different - what next the reintroduction of the Corn Laws?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Budda's right - for a lot of goods the efficiency of producing them elsewhere outweights the environmental cost of movement.

    The UK tomamto industry spends significant amounts of heating greenhouses, when it actually produces less carbon to ship them in from Southern Europe
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    free trade is the only way to bring countries out of poverty (and proper free trade is fair - currently our free trade isn't free and our fair trade isn't fair)

    :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Budda's right - for a lot of goods the efficiency of producing them elsewhere outweights the environmental cost of movement.

    The UK tomamto industry spends significant amounts of heating greenhouses, when it actually produces less carbon to ship them in from Southern Europe

    But is that the exception or the rule? I know that for example, with British scampi, it's more environmentally friendly to ship them to Thailand to be breadcrumbed by hand, than it is to run a factory to do it automatically in the UK. But I assume this doesn't apply to all products.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Buy your wine from Chile: help the poor. Buy it from France: help the environment.
    Buy your wine from Chile: get the best wine :thumb: :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think there is a good argument for keeing some incentives to produce food in britain. Food unlike for example manufactured goods are completely essential to life, if one year there is a drought in ethiopia and they can't supply as much grain as we need... then either we buy their domestic stocks and they starve or we don't and we starve.

    There is more value in growing domestic food than just the money made from the profits and so we should reflect that by giving extra incentives. Or something...

    As for wine I prefer Australian..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    free trade is the only way to bring countries out of poverty (and proper free trade is fair - currently our free trade isn't free and our fair trade isn't fair)

    Multi-nationals provide massive funding into countries - both in infrastructure, wages and exchange of technology/ideas. That money is reinvested in the country - employing people (both directly and indirectly) and in taxation. A small amount (typically about 10-20%) is taken out in profits, but that's insignificant compared to the money pumped in by the MNC being there.

    It also acts as a catalyst for home-grown industries - as the money from wages allows investment and the skills which are transfered can be succesfully applied to the creation of local businesses.

    Trade has been a massive enricher for people's lives - not just in wealth, but in the range of products we can buy. It binds countries together and makes wars between them less likely (as it's better to trade for the resources than invade for control of same).

    I honestly can't believe that in the beginning of the 21st century people believe anything different - what next the reintroduction of the Corn Laws?
    Tell all of that to the billions of people struggling to put enough food on the table for their families and see if they agree. For as long as wealth distribution remains as disproportionate as unfair as it is and has always been, capitalism and 'free' trade will be deeply flawed systems that will fail the poor.

    And given the lengths companies and rich individuals go to keep as much as the wealth created to themselves as possible, nothing will ever change for the billions of people on this planet who live on a handful of dollars a day and haven't even got access to the most basic necessities.

    Instead of worrying about whether being environmentally conscious might have an adverse effect on poverty we should tackle the real issues behind it. Though no doubt some parties are more than happy for the debate on poverty to centre around the environment rather than the root causes of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    free trade is the only way to bring countries out of poverty (and proper free trade is fair - currently our free trade isn't free and our fair trade isn't fair)

    The only stipulation I would put on that is basic set levels of animal welfare and land stewardship. If any other country/farm/business outside the EU meets those then they should be able to trade with us with no import charges.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Instead of worrying about whether being environmentally conscious might have an adverse effect on poverty we should tackle the real issues behind it. Though no doubt some parties are more than happy for the debate on poverty to centre around the environment rather than the root causes of it.

    The real issue behind most wide spread environmental damage is money, trees are worth more to some countries as logs than they are standing for example.

    If we in the west want developing countries not to do exactly what we did (cut down all the trees and kill the animals) we need to make it more profitable for them not to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But is that the exception or the rule? I know that for example, with British scampi, it's more environmentally friendly to ship them to Thailand to be breadcrumbed by hand, than it is to run a factory to do it automatically in the UK. But I assume this doesn't apply to all products.

    It would depend on the product, some are better to locally produce (potatoes is probably a good example), others are more environmentally produced overseas.

    There can also be a cost:benefit analysis - it may cost £5 to produce widget in the UK and £3 in China. There may be shipping costs from China, but the extra savings can be plowed back into to more effective design/waste saving systems which are more environmentally friendly in the long run.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Tell all of that to the billions of people struggling to put enough food on the table for their families and see if they agree. For as long as wealth distribution remains as disproportionate as unfair as it is and has always been, capitalism and 'free' trade will be deeply flawed systems that will fail the poor.
    China under Mao, or China now and in the next 20-30 years?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    China under Mao, or China now and in the next 20-30 years?

    Wealth distribution in China is probably even less fair now than it was under the Imperial Court. But the life of those at the bottom does seem to be improving at the moment - well as long as they can keep inflation under control which seems an issue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Tell all of that to the billions of people struggling to put enough food on the table for their families and see if they agree. For as long as wealth distribution remains as disproportionate as unfair as it is and has always been, capitalism and 'free' trade will be deeply flawed systems that will fail the poor.

    More than happy to. I'll give them the three reasons they're poor
    1) Corruption
    2) Protectionism (of which the EU is a prime example)
    3) Collectivisation and socialisation of their economy
    And given the lengths companies and rich individuals go to keep as much as the wealth created to themselves as possible, nothing will ever change for the billions of people on this planet who live on a handful of dollars a day and haven't even got access to the most basic necessities.

    If you live in these countries working for a MNC is a bloody good job - often paying well over the average. Why else do you think people work for them?
    Instead of worrying about whether being environmentally conscious might have an adverse effect on poverty we should tackle the real issues behind it. Though no doubt some parties are more than happy for the debate on poverty to centre around the environment rather than the root causes of it

    We are discussing the real issues of poverty. You just happen to disagree with what these causes are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Wealth distribution in China is probably even less fair now than it was under the Imperial Court. But the life of those at the bottom does seem to be improving at the moment - well as long as they can keep inflation under control which seems an issue.

    depends what you mean as less fair - China in the 1860s for example wasn't exactly free and fair. It was a country where they crushed the feet of women together because it looked nice, which nailed the tongues of people to the roofs for petty theft and where the aristocracy could pretty much do what they liked.

    I'd also be interested to see a source for that given the wealth of the Imperial Gardens when they were looted by the French and us (in revenge for the torture to death of a Times journo) showed the top dogs weren't living in abject poverty.

    (Of course I'm being slightly hypocritical about sources given my knowledge of 1860's China is taken from one book about Charles Gordon and the fantastic Flashman)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    The only stipulation I would put on that is basic set levels of animal welfare and land stewardship. If any other country/farm/business outside the EU meets those then they should be able to trade with us with no import charges.

    Land stewardship perhaps...

    Animal welfare seems to be a backdoor way of increasing the costs (eg battery hen eggs are much cheaper to produce than free range) and hence protectionism by the back door. It seems that animal welfare (like the environment) comes with wealth. Allow them to raise the living standards of humans first and then let's care about the chickens.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Land stewardship perhaps...

    Animal welfare seems to be a backdoor way of increasing the costs (eg battery hen eggs are much cheaper to produce than free range) and hence protectionism by the back door. It seems that animal welfare (like the environment) comes with wealth. Allow them to raise the living standards of humans first and then let's care about the chickens.

    I just mean the absolutle basic standards allowed in the EU, which lets put it bluntly arent exactly nice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    depends what you mean as less fair - China in the 1860s for example wasn't exactly free and fair. It was a country where they crushed the feet of women together because it looked nice, which nailed the tongues of people to the roofs for petty theft and where the aristocracy could pretty much do what they liked.

    I'd also be interested to see a source for that given the wealth of the Imperial Gardens when they were looted by the French and us (in revenge for the torture to death of a Times journo) showed the top dogs weren't living in abject poverty.

    (Of course I'm being slightly hypocritical about sources given my knowledge of 1860's China is taken from one book about Charles Gordon and the fantastic Flashman)

    I dont know, my knowledge of China isnt exactly massive either. I just meant to point out that in China today there are numerous billionaires yet many workers are still on next to nothing. (that is a good Flashman)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    More than happy to. I'll give them the three reasons they're poor
    1) Corruption
    2) Protectionism (of which the EU is a prime example)
    3) Collectivisation and socialisation of their economy
    And there was me thinking it was more to do with 10% of the population owning 90% of the country's industry, land, industry and wealth, and keeping the profits for themselves while paying their workers slave wages...

    If you live in these countries working for a MNC is a bloody good job - often paying well over the average. Why else do you think people work for them?
    I don't know how well paid those jobs are, but I do know the immense majority of the people of any given country do not work for MNCs.

    One way to ensure wealth is distributed fairly and that as many people do not live in poverty as possible is through taxation and investment in public infrastructure and services. Something capitalists, companies and their shareholders, and the great majority of rich people are diametrically opposed to.


    We are discussing the real issues of poverty. You just happen to disagree with what these causes are.
    If there is x amount of wealth for a country and less than 10% keep most of it, more than 90% will have very little indeed, and will live in poverty.

    That is by far the biggest and most significance cause of poverty, and is a direct consequence of capitalism and greed.

    Envirnomental thinking and its effect on global trade and wealth are but a drop in the ocean by comparison.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If there is x amount of wealth for a country and less than 10% keep most of it, more than 90% will have very little indeed, and will live in poverty.

    That is by far the biggest and most significance cause of poverty, and is a direct consequence of capitalism and greed.

    Envirnomental thinking and its effect on global trade and wealth are but a drop in the ocean by comparison.

    Money isnt like a big pie, me having more doesnt mean you'll have less. But you are right in terms of governance of countries, especially poor ones who tend to have crap governments who routinely steal from the people and enter in dodgy contracts with MNC's.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And there was me thinking it was more to do with 10% of the population owning 90% of the country's industry, land, industry and wealth, and keeping the profits for themselves while paying their workers slave wages... .

    Well now you know it's not.

    I don't know how well paid those jobs are, but I do know the immense majority of the people of any given country do not work for MNCs.

    of course they don't - there's massive competition because the MNCs are seen as much better jobs.
    One way to ensure wealth is distributed fairly and that as many people do not live in poverty as possible is through taxation and investment in public infrastructure and services. Something capitalists, companies and their shareholders, and the great majority of rich people are diametrically opposed to.

    Capitalism breeds the money to pay for infrastructure. private investment in these countries breeds more tax revenue than money growing on trees (in theory of course - this is where corruption comes in and the ability of people/companies to avoid taxation)


    If there is x amount of wealth for a country and less than 10% keep most of it, more than 90% will have very little indeed, and will live in poverty.

    That is by far the biggest and most significance cause of poverty, and is a direct consequence of capitalism and greed.

    but yet in Western countries people live pretty wealthy lives despite this wealth inequality - whilst in Zimbabwe the poverty is a direct result of redistribution.

    Envirnomental thinking and its effect on global trade and wealth are but a drop in the ocean by comparison

    It's a factor - though I agree not the only one. however if Egypt and Morrocco, for example, can't sell it's produce it doesn't get money for it. the result is we have more expensive oranges and Egypt has lots of people unemployed as orange orchards close, and with no money coming into support them

    (and of course things like fresh fruit and veg are often sent in by bulk container ships not aircraft)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    One way to ensure wealth is distributed fairly and that as many people do not live in poverty as possible is through taxation and investment in public infrastructure and services. Something capitalists, companies and their shareholders, and the great majority of rich people are diametrically opposed to.

    It's entirely possible to do both. To take Budda's analogy, you need free market capitalism to increase the size of the pie, and a good system of redistribution, public services and worker's rights to ensure that everyone gets a slice. Vietnam would be a good example of a developing country that has a good balance (though I would say slightly too socialist and protectionist). And most of Europe would be a good example of developed countries with the same sort of idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I just mean the absolutle basic standards allowed in the EU, which lets put it bluntly arent exactly nice.

    Even then I think that they are higher than many poorer countries can afford and seems to be putting the animals welfare above that of humans.

    I'm happy to stick by our international obligations (ie no shooting of whales) and happy to restrict things which are unsafe (so no Chernobyl reared mutton), but that's about as far as I'd go on food.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even then I think that they are higher than many poorer countries can afford and seems to be putting the animals welfare above that of humans.

    I'm happy to stick by our international obligations (ie no shooting of whales) and happy to restrict things which are unsafe (so no Chernobyl reared mutton), but that's about as far as I'd go on food.

    Then its not fair trade, and we could end up with meat that has been fed god knows what with possibility of another BSE type health issue.

    Chernobyl reared mutton would be fine to eat, radiation is a J curve not a straight line as they first thought, a bit doesnt do you any harm.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Then its not fair trade, and we could end up with meat that has been fed god knows what with possibility of another BSE type health issue.

    Chernobyl reared mutton would be fine to eat, radiation is a J curve not a straight line as they first thought, a bit doesnt do you any harm.

    I don't enough about Mutton and Chernobyl - so I used it as an example, but am happy to accept I'm wrong on that particular case.

    But as long as the food's safe to eat let them import it - I'm happy for us to check it is safe before we let it in (so we could ban Beef which has been fed on cow brains if we think that exposes us to a health risk)

    I suppose you should also put restrictions on somewhere like Zimbabwe exporting food when they can't grow enough themselves as another provisio, now I think about what restrictions I'd want.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But as long as the food's safe to eat let them import it - I'm happy for us to check it is safe before we let it in (so we could ban Beef which has been fed on cow brains if we think that exposes us to a health risk)

    I suppose you should also put restrictions on somewhere like Zimbabwe exporting food when they can't grow enough themselves as another provisio, now I think about what restrictions I'd want.

    And the easiest way to check its safe is to know how its been reared.

    You would have to word that very carefully, a country may want to export lots of mangos to gain quick capital to buy rice which is cheaper than growing it - for example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    And the easiest way to check its safe is to know how its been reared..

    I don't mind us checking. But if there's no harm to humans I wouldn't want to block it (BSE is a good example of protectionism by the back-door and how health concerns are used to stop imports)
    You would have to word that very carefully, a country may want to export lots of mangos to gain quick capital to buy rice which is cheaper than growing it - for example


    Yes, it's one I think is fine in theory, but maybe the devils in the detail. In is better to sell coffee to buy wheat or grow the wheat? I suppose the advantage of free trade allows you that choice, and if it is better to sell coffee and buy wheat you may have some more left over for some drugs, or tarmac for a new road etc
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't mind us checking. But if there's no harm to humans I wouldn't want to block it (BSE is a good example of protectionism by the back-door and how health concerns are used to stop imports)

    Fair enough, I think customer concern would probably mean the worst practices would become unprofitable anyway.

    Yes, it's one I think is fine in theory, but maybe the devils in the detail. In is better to sell coffee to buy wheat or grow the wheat? I suppose the advantage of free trade allows you that choice, and if it is better to sell coffee and buy wheat you may have some more left over for some drugs, or tarmac for a new road etc

    Exactly, in some places it will be better to grow cash crops and buy food from another country.
Sign In or Register to comment.