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.
Options
Poverty vs. Environment
Former 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.
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.
0
Comments
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.
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.
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?
The UK tomamto industry spends significant amounts of heating greenhouses, when it actually produces less carbon to ship them in from Southern Europe
:thumb:
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
We are discussing the real issues of poverty. You just happen to disagree with what these causes are.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
Well now you know it's not.
of course they don't - there's massive competition because the MNCs are seen as much better jobs.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
Fair enough, I think customer concern would probably mean the worst practices would become unprofitable anyway.
Exactly, in some places it will be better to grow cash crops and buy food from another country.