4 ms·

Some impact is better than no impact. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

brianwawok 8y ago
Is it though? I wonder about this a lot. Let's say 100 farmers around the world sell palm oil, for $100 a tub. About half wreck the environment, about half are very careful and replant what they harvest. Western people come in and start to refuse to buy the "environment wrecking" Palm Oil. So they go to the environmental friendly sellers, and start paying $150 for ethical palm oil. On the other hand, people that don't care or places that can get away with it continue to use forest destroying palm oil. There is now a price difference ($100 for normal stuff, $150 for ethical stuff), so most non-western demand shifts to the cheap stuff. End result: Still 100 farmers selling palm oil. 50 being ethical, and 50 not. The 50 unethical farmers still make $100 per tub. The 50 ethical farmers now make $150 per tub. The environment seems no different. The only difference is that $50 got transferred from the banks of wealthy westerners to the ethical palm oil farmers. Which is nice and all, but I am not seeing how it changed anything in the environment. You would need almost EVERYONE to switch to the ethical route for it to do anything. That would cause surplus supply and price drops of unethical palm oil. Even 50% of users switching seems not nearly enough.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  If there is enough demand, the unethical farmers can move to the ethical side to make the better price.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    Sure at some tipping point. But in my case the unethical farmers can easily sell the same stuff they already produce, just to a different part of the crowd.
- fulafel 8y ago
  Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half.
  - rymohr 8y ago
    Or there’s an incentive for the unethical farmer to wreck twice as much to make up for the 50% decline in revenue.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    > Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. No, in my scenario only half the farmers were wrecking the forest anyway. That did not change. > Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half. Perhaps, but also higher costs. They may still be less ethical then the unethical farmers.
    - fulafel 8y ago
      Ah, thanks for the clarification. So the gist of your concern is that pre-existing naturally occurring sustainable production might get windfall profits- but and the demand is not enough to change the remaining production. This is analogous to the situation in electricity n markets and hydro production btw. Old hydro dams built in the 50s produce power for customers paying extra for "green power" and the money doesn't go to investments in wind/solar.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  You are arguing that 100% percent of the lost demand will be replaced. In reality it will be some fraction that is smaller than 100%.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    What % of people in the world demand ethical palm oil? if it's 50%.. and the current supply is 51%.. I don't think you change anything by the crusade except spend more money?
    - vertline3 8y ago
      Not necessarily, Taleb had an essay which is also a chapter in his book "Skin in the Game" which I think you can find online, called "most intolerant wins: dicatorship of the Small Minority". If a group can be loud and forceful, even if their numbers are small, they can create positive change to help orangutans

Is it though? I wonder about this a lot. Let's say 100 farmers around the world sell palm oil, for $100 a tub. About half wreck the environment, about half are very careful and replant what they harvest. Western people come in and start to refuse to buy the "environment wrecking" Palm Oil. So they go to the environmental friendly sellers, and start paying $150 for ethical palm oil. On the other hand, people that don't care or places that can get away with it continue to use forest destroying palm oil. There is now a price difference ($100 for normal stuff, $150 for ethical stuff), so most non-western demand shifts to the cheap stuff. End result: Still 100 farmers selling palm oil. 50 being ethical, and 50 not. The 50 unethical farmers still make $100 per tub. The 50 ethical farmers now make $150 per tub. The environment seems no different. The only difference is that $50 got transferred from the banks of wealthy westerners to the ethical palm oil farmers. Which is nice and all, but I am not seeing how it changed anything in the environment. You would need almost EVERYONE to switch to the ethical route for it to do anything. That would cause surplus supply and price drops of unethical palm oil. Even 50% of users switching seems not nearly enough.

metalliqaz 8y ago
If there is enough demand, the unethical farmers can move to the ethical side to make the better price.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Sure at some tipping point. But in my case the unethical farmers can easily sell the same stuff they already produce, just to a different part of the crowd.
fulafel 8y ago
Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half.
- rymohr 8y ago
  Or there’s an incentive for the unethical farmer to wreck twice as much to make up for the 50% decline in revenue.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  > Your scenario would still fix half of the forest-wrecking, so yes it is. No, in my scenario only half the farmers were wrecking the forest anyway. That did not change. > Additionally, there is now an incentive to become an ethical farmer for the remaining half. Perhaps, but also higher costs. They may still be less ethical then the unethical farmers.
  - fulafel 8y ago
    Ah, thanks for the clarification. So the gist of your concern is that pre-existing naturally occurring sustainable production might get windfall profits- but and the demand is not enough to change the remaining production. This is analogous to the situation in electricity n markets and hydro production btw. Old hydro dams built in the 50s produce power for customers paying extra for "green power" and the money doesn't go to investments in wind/solar.
CompelTechnic 8y ago
You are arguing that 100% percent of the lost demand will be replaced. In reality it will be some fraction that is smaller than 100%.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  What % of people in the world demand ethical palm oil? if it's 50%.. and the current supply is 51%.. I don't think you change anything by the crusade except spend more money?
  - vertline3 8y ago
    Not necessarily, Taleb had an essay which is also a chapter in his book "Skin in the Game" which I think you can find online, called "most intolerant wins: dicatorship of the Small Minority". If a group can be loud and forceful, even if their numbers are small, they can create positive change to help orangutans