3 ms·

So, you think that getting into your car, driving to a retail location, paying $7.95 for that $1 item, and then driving back home is better for the environment?

• dirtyid 7y ago
  I suspect every dollar you contribute to a high-consumption 1st world economy is inherently going to be worse for the environment than sending it a developing country. Like that vegan / grassfed / murican made premium is going to fund someone's conspicuous consumption, versus spent on more basic needs in developing countries. And in case of China, with incredibly high savings rate, it's just going to the bank.
  • erichocean 7y ago
    China is the largest polluter of the planet, and it's not even close. And it's not because they're poor, it's that culturally, they don't seem to give a shit. The higher their standard of living becomes, the more they pollute. Maybe, someday, they'll change. I hope so. For now, though, the only countries that care about the environment enough to pass laws preventing its destruction are in the West. People who care about the environment should spend their money accordingly.
    • pravda 7y ago
      Is that on a per capita basis? Because it is not really fair if it is not. Also, the Chinese might argue that the West outsources their industrial pollution to China.
    • dirtyid 7y ago
      China has 1/2 of per the capita emissions as most western countries, even with outsourced western manufacturing factored in. The dollar you're spending on a cheap Chinese item is going to some middle class drop shipper with 10,000 USD income who is going to save 45% of it in the bank. >the only countries that care about the environment enough to pass laws preventing its destruction are in the West. Environmentalism at the cost of economic growth is one of the few things Chinese public made CPC concede on. See the rapid improvement in air quality in major urban centres and the variety of green initiatives China is actually meeting prematurely. Westerners dog whistles that they care about the environment, they might genuinely believe it, but that's certainly not reflected en-mass in individual actions or massive infrastructure responses. >People who care about the environment should spend their money accordingly. Yet people who are good for the environment are the ones who spend less, aka people with less money, or if we're bringing in culture, the propensity to save. China savings rate is among the highest in the world, it's substantially higher than western countries. Compared to a western vendor who has a higher profit margin and lower saving rate = more consumption -> worse for the environment. The only thing keeping consumption down in the west is wage and purchase power stagnation due to increased inequity. And that's the hard pill, the best way to reduce consumption in absence of behavior change is to make people broke or redistribute wealth in a manner that reduces consumption.