6 ms·

This is only a half measure and doesn't directly tackle the emissions or pollution problems in today's disgustingly wasteful and destructive global food product

This is only a half measure and doesn't directly tackle the emissions or pollution problems in today's disgustingly wasteful and destructive global food production system. We need 1.) more travel distance labels that show where things are from, while 2.) at the same time showing how much of the costs are government subsidized, as well as the emissions generated by the transportation costs. Of course we need corresponding shifts, e.g. in helping communities learn how to cook with seasonal vegetables etc.. Living in the Netherlands, I don't need to eat asparagus from Peru in December. But yeah, like in the airline and oil industries, it's the use of subsidies that's one of the root problems (although we all know that the US military industrial complex alone is one of the biggest polluters [1]). We need more signaling systems that show the real costs; not to shame the working class who buy food (or pretend they have any real power to effect change), but to help reveal to them the wastefulness and destruction of the current system. "Many urbanised people have lost touch with the sources of their food, and may not realize that the distance their food travels has been steadily increasing. In the US, the average pound of food now travels 1,500 miles before it reaches the dinner table, and the distance continues to grow. Much of this transport is needless: every day, identical commodities pass in opposite directions, criss-crossing the globe. The ‘logic’ of the global economy leads the US and other nations to import hundreds of thousands of tons of staple foods each year, while simultaneously exporting roughly the same amount. In an era of dwindling fossil fuel reserves and rising CO2 emissions, this is both senseless and wasteful. But it is a trend that is accelerating as governments systematically promote a single, globalized food system." - Helena Norberg Hodge [2] [1] https://qz.com/1655268/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-140-countries-combined/ https://qz.com/1655268/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than... [2] https://www.localfutures.org/the-case-for-local-food/ https://www.localfutures.org/the-case-for-local-food/

syshum 5y ago
Or rather look at ways to why food is traveling more would should be counter intuative, and is likely caused by increased regulations and taxation in local area's that make food production unprofitable locally so it has to move further and further to make it work economically But yes more government regulations, more labeling, and shaming poor people into buying more expensive food is the better path ... Once again government creates a problem, then people look to government to solve the very problem it created which creates even more problems //When my "Local" farmer is charging 4-5x more than the supermarket for the same food, guess where I am shopping... hint it is not local
- beckman466 5y ago
  > Once again government creates a problem, then people look to government to solve the very problem it created which creates even more problems What? And your answer is the private sector? Yeah i totally love how Bill Gates is trying to make Indian and African farmers dependent on Monsanto/Bayer's toxic GMO seeds. [1][2] I don't think that the dichotomy that you allude to, between the government/state and business/companies, makes much sense: 1.) A national government is what creates the laws and maintains the registry of land/resources (land/resources which are owned by companies) 2.) A company is literally a database entry in a government database, the state issues the 'birth certificates' and 'death certificates' (folding a business or bankruptcy) for companies. 3.) When a profit-seeking company builds up knowledge today they want to enclose it by using intellectual property laws (useful for a monopoly). 4.) Competition between nations leads to useless competition, because often the same research and development has to be done twice (or just, every time again for each new country) - wasting resources and labor. The working class pays for all this dearly, since they are not part of the propertied class and are thus completely at the mercy of their whims and with only their labor to sell. So yeah, the nation state needs the concept of companies, and companies are only possible by having a state. Capitalism and nationalism/patriotism is the name of this game. Imagine if all of humanity pooled all it's non-scarce resources, removing all knowledge gatekeeping apparatus that blocks the diffusion of innovation by creating artificial scarcity where none need be. Imagine all technology and science open access for the benefit of the working class. What a dream. [3] [1] https://grain.org/en/article/6511-why-the-bill-gates-global-health-empire-promises-more-empire-and-less-public-health https://grain.org/en/article/6511-why-the-bill-gates-global-... [2] https://grain.org/en/article/5910-under-the-cover-of-philanthropy-a-monopoly-machine-at-work https://grain.org/en/article/5910-under-the-cover-of-philant... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/19/open-source-revolution-conquer-one-percent-cia-spy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/j...
bennysomething 5y ago
But it isn't as simple as plastic is a net bad. It prolongs the shelf life of fruit and vegetables.
- runarberg 5y ago
  Lets take this further: 1. Plastic containers need to be manufactured from raw material, shipped to the packaging site, and recycled or disposed of after use. So there is that. 2. Increased shelf life of food products also have an induced demand behavior (similar to highway lanes) which might result in more overall food being shipped and spoiled then if the shelf life would have been shorter. 3. Increased shelf life allows food to be shipped further, which might sound like a good thing, but not if you factor in the same product is available from a closer source. This also encourages large scale mono-culture as local farms have a harder time competing against larger farms farther away. So it is definitely not as simple as increased shelf life == better carbon footprint.
wffurr 5y ago
Wouldn't a carbon tax on primary energy sources, e.g. per barrel of oil or ton of coal, help account for pricing food more appropriately according to its carbon impact?

syshum 5y ago

Or rather look at ways to why food is traveling more would should be counter intuative, and is likely caused by increased regulations and taxation in local area's that make food production unprofitable locally so it has to move further and further to make it work economically But yes more government regulations, more labeling, and shaming poor people into buying more expensive food is the better path ... Once again government creates a problem, then people look to government to solve the very problem it created which creates even more problems //When my "Local" farmer is charging 4-5x more than the supermarket for the same food, guess where I am shopping... hint it is not local

beckman466 5y ago
> Once again government creates a problem, then people look to government to solve the very problem it created which creates even more problems What? And your answer is the private sector? Yeah i totally love how Bill Gates is trying to make Indian and African farmers dependent on Monsanto/Bayer's toxic GMO seeds. [1][2] I don't think that the dichotomy that you allude to, between the government/state and business/companies, makes much sense: 1.) A national government is what creates the laws and maintains the registry of land/resources (land/resources which are owned by companies) 2.) A company is literally a database entry in a government database, the state issues the 'birth certificates' and 'death certificates' (folding a business or bankruptcy) for companies. 3.) When a profit-seeking company builds up knowledge today they want to enclose it by using intellectual property laws (useful for a monopoly). 4.) Competition between nations leads to useless competition, because often the same research and development has to be done twice (or just, every time again for each new country) - wasting resources and labor. The working class pays for all this dearly, since they are not part of the propertied class and are thus completely at the mercy of their whims and with only their labor to sell. So yeah, the nation state needs the concept of companies, and companies are only possible by having a state. Capitalism and nationalism/patriotism is the name of this game. Imagine if all of humanity pooled all it's non-scarce resources, removing all knowledge gatekeeping apparatus that blocks the diffusion of innovation by creating artificial scarcity where none need be. Imagine all technology and science open access for the benefit of the working class. What a dream. [3] [1] https://grain.org/en/article/6511-why-the-bill-gates-global-health-empire-promises-more-empire-and-less-public-health https://grain.org/en/article/6511-why-the-bill-gates-global-... [2] https://grain.org/en/article/5910-under-the-cover-of-philanthropy-a-monopoly-machine-at-work https://grain.org/en/article/5910-under-the-cover-of-philant... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/19/open-source-revolution-conquer-one-percent-cia-spy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/j...

bennysomething 5y ago

But it isn't as simple as plastic is a net bad. It prolongs the shelf life of fruit and vegetables.

runarberg 5y ago
Lets take this further: 1. Plastic containers need to be manufactured from raw material, shipped to the packaging site, and recycled or disposed of after use. So there is that. 2. Increased shelf life of food products also have an induced demand behavior (similar to highway lanes) which might result in more overall food being shipped and spoiled then if the shelf life would have been shorter. 3. Increased shelf life allows food to be shipped further, which might sound like a good thing, but not if you factor in the same product is available from a closer source. This also encourages large scale mono-culture as local farms have a harder time competing against larger farms farther away. So it is definitely not as simple as increased shelf life == better carbon footprint.

wffurr 5y ago

Wouldn't a carbon tax on primary energy sources, e.g. per barrel of oil or ton of coal, help account for pricing food more appropriately according to its carbon impact?