4 ms·
It not only misleading, it is intentionally mixing of fungeable and non-fungeable goods in order to turn something obvious dirty as being clean. If Scotland ex
by belorn 6y ago
It not only misleading, it is intentionally mixing of fungeable and non-fungeable goods in order to turn something obvious dirty as being clean.
If Scotland exports of wool exceeded the amount of imported cotton, then we can pretend that the cotton import never existed. Cotton and wool is pretty interchangeable as textile fibers. This then allow us to purchase cotton that is produce by child labor, because the cotton didn't actually exist because look, wool production exceeds the demand for textile fiber.
It pure silliness. If a country buy energy produced from fossil fuel then that country is responsible for the pollution. No amount of exporting clean energy will erase the pollution. Its there, it is being generated, and the customer who pays for it has a distinct responsibility.
- kwhitefoot 6y agoSo the producer of the pollution gets off scot free? Or are you going to count the pollution twice?
- belorn 6y agoI would rather count pollution twice than zero, but in the example of abusive labor, we definitively do count it twice. Companies should be called out if they buy products produced by forced labor camps, child labor, and conflict diamonds, and sweatshops. At the same time, the companies that actually do the forced labor or employ people under abusive conditions are very much also guilty.