6 ms·
I think the main reasons why so much food is wasted are the same reasons why so much water, petrol and electricity are wasted: all of those have become commodit
by ciconia 7y ago
I think the main reasons why so much food is wasted are the same reasons why so much water, petrol and electricity are wasted: all of those have become commodities in endless supply, literally streaming out of a pipe (well, a distribution pipe in the case of food) at the push of a button; and all those things are in fact too cheap (the price for the end user does not reflect the cost of production and of externalities like CO2 emissions, health and environmental damage).
In my analysis, one of the best ways to reduce waste and over-consumption is to stop subsidies for agriculture, water, oil etc, and let prices reflect the real cost. Of course, in a growth-based economy this kind of change would never happen.
But other solutions are also possible, even in the current system. Our family of four is slowly transitioning to sustainable consumption, starting from food and hopefully becoming fully autonomous someday with regards to water and electricity.
One of the changes we've made is buying higher-quality products in smaller quantities, preferably from local sources. Another change is to try and close the waste loop. Any food not eaten by us will go to our dog and cat, and eventually to our chickens, who provide eggs, meat and soil fertiliser. Further optimisation is achieved by using dry toilets - our bodily waste is composted on site, the carbon is sequestered and eventually turns into soil.
I strongly believe that "closing the loop" like that can be practiced on a much larger scale, even on a national scale.
- chillwaves 7y agoThe pricing should penalize over-consumption. Let's say the first 10 gallons of gas per week are taxed at a certain rate, the next 10 gallons a higher rate and so forth.
- new2628 7y agoWhy the downvotes, this is an insightful (if inconvenient to some) point.
- pessimizer 7y agoWhy do you find the point insightful? A defense will work better than a lament.
- chillwaves 7y agoThink of it as a subsidiary for the poor. Market forces have not been responsive to creating a sustainable planet, while we also have to recognize the necessities for life/production in society. The cost increases at a higher rate for those who go beyond the basic needs. Secondly to incentivize less consumption.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mruts 7y agoOr we could like, have the market decide? What you’re saying violates the law of one price and doesn’t make any sense.
- danans 7y agoExcept that's already how natural gas and electricity are priced.
- mruts 7y agoAnd you think that’s related to a free market?
- danans 7y agoNo. You're starting with the assumption that the completely free market is the best way to achieve our societal objectives around energy production, distribution, and consumption. I disagree, saying that there are other better models than the completely free market, that still employ free market elements, including tiered and time of use pricing. But that's probably because we believe in different societal objectives on this subject.
- cortesoft 7y agoThe market doesn't care about fairness, though, and we do. We want everyone to be able to afford enough gas to get around, but if we price it cheaply enough to do that, large consumers are going to use too much and damage the environment. If we place larger taxes on the fuel to price in the externality of environmental damage, we price poorer people out of the market for gas.
- danans 7y agoWhat you are describing is tiered energy pricing. This is already done for natural gas and electricity in many areas. The tiered pricing happens because energy utilities are incentivized via regulation to reduce consumption after a certain point. No such incentive structure exists for the gasoline market, and absent a true carbon tax, the remaining way to achieve conservation of gasoline is to push forward alternatives to gasoline powered vehicles.
- doubleunplussed 7y agoProgressive taxation of income/wealth would seem to have the same effect, but for everything you consume. No need to tax the goods if you can tax the income first.
- xyzzyz 7y agoIn my analysis, one of the best ways to reduce waste and over-consumption is to stop subsidies for agriculture, water, oil etc, and let prices reflect the real cost. This wouldn't help as much as you think. Even without subsidies, those things would still be very cheap, and the subsidies are ultimately paid by all of us anyway in taxes.
- ken 7y agoIt's great that you're voluntarily becoming self-sustainable, but many actions which are great when done voluntarily make for poor public policy. In many areas, it's simply impossible to write a policy that is fair to everyone. Or it could work fairly but it doesn't scale. Ending agricultural subsidies sounds nice in theory, but what other consequences will it have? I sure wouldn't want to have to tell the low-income part of town "Your food is now twice as expensive, but if you just plan better and don't throw as much away it'll work out the same." Poor people can't afford tupperware! Lack of planning isn't their problem. Being poor is expensive.