This seems like a really good sign. We can only hope global shipping continues to shrink until we can get down to a level of consumer purchasing that is sustainable for the ecology of the planet.
The less money people have the less they care about the environment. That's why as quality of life went up in Western countries the environment became more and more important to people, to the point that it's almost an obsession for some people now.
I'm not sure I follow your logic - data would help your point.
For example, there may be a missing middle step there - as quality of life went up
(due to massively increased international trade which allowed suppliers in emerging markets to bypass strict first-world environmental regulations and massively pollute)
Then the reaction to the worsening environment because of overall consumption increase caused a backlash and increase environmental awareness...
You think the only way for people to increase their quality of life is to pollute?
And you think people want a better environment as a backlash? That's such upsidedown thinking. People always want a better environment, but if they are searching for their next meal they have better things to worry about.
But once they are secure then they worry about their local environment, and when they are very secure they worry about remote environments as well.
So the best way to improve the environment is to significantly increase the quality of life of everyone. And one way (not the only way) is trade, and yes, lots of consumption.
You have to remember: It's impossible for us to run out of resources because those atoms aren't going anywhere. All we need is energy and anything is possible.
You want an amazing environment? Then find a way to MASSIVELY boost energy output. With all that energy we can do anything, including fix the issues caused by using all that energy.
But for some reason environmentalists want people to go the other way, and reduce energy usage. This will just cause an environmental catastrophe because now people will have a lower quality of life and would not care in the slightest about the environment.
I'll get hammered for this, and I know it would take some time to tool up, but were the 50's through the 70,s that much of a lower quality of life? (Relied a lot less on overseas shipping--for a few reasons.)
Oh, yea, we would have to get used to paying more for some things, get used to paying Americans a decent wage, get used not being able to manufacture in the cheapest countries, get used to the poor having better opportunities to join the middle class, and probally a lot of more get's.
And yes--I know--our reliance on manufacturing in the cheapest country helps those poor people live better lives. Those people at Foxcon, and other Chinese/whatever countries workers seem like they are treated so well. These foreign countries care so much about the enviorment. Some of these countries have become so rich they built up their military--like China. Some foreign enterprising individuals become rich, and buy American houses, even though they don't live here. That last one is great.
At one time, we got along fine without the cheap goods from other countries--with the exception of one commodity--oil. Oh yea, the cheap cost of goods at Apple don't seem to be passed on to consumers?
> but were the 50's through the 70,s that much of a lower quality of life
For the vast majority of the people who don't live in the USA or Europe, life was certainly much worse back then. Foxconn might not be the best place in the world to work, but it beats the hell out of living in a small town under a Maoist government.
> even though they don't live here
We could have made a crapload of money off their insecurity by taxing non-occupied housing, perhaps even building ghost cities/property tax farms from scratch. We could have used the revenue on infrastructure or social services. But no, we didn't have the political will to do that.
> were the 50's through the 70,s that much of a lower quality of life?
Yes, they really were. At least, I remember the '90s, and quality of life was a lot worse back then, I assume the trend continues as you go further back.
> Those people at Foxcon, and other Chinese/whatever countries workers seem like they are treated so well. These foreign countries care so much about the enviorment.
Chinese wages are trending upwards and China is putting a lot more environmental regulation in place - to the extent that some manufacturers there are now offshoring to poorer countries. Will it take them time to catch up? Yes. Are they doing it a lot faster than the US did the first time around? Also yes. It would be a bizarre kind of ethics that said that it would be fine for Chinese workers to earn less and Chinese factories to pollute more as long as we weren't buying from them.
> Some foreign enterprising individuals become rich, and buy American houses, even though they don't live here. That last one is great.
Their reasons for doing that are the same as Americans' reasons for doing that (which they do quite a lot - it's just easier to blame everything on evil foreigners). Fix the incentives and you'll fix the problems. If you don't like empty houses, how about strong squatters' rights?
> At one time, we got along fine without the cheap goods from other countries
We didn't "get along fine". We survived, but life was a lot worse.
> Oh yea, the cheap cost of goods at Apple don't seem to be passed on to consumers?
I have no idea why people buy expensive things from Apple when they can get better versions cheaper from their competitors, but that's their lookout.
That's pretty abstract. If you weren't alive in the 70s you don't know or care what the standard of living was then. The only question is, what are you asking people to give up now, and what are you offering them in return?
Wouldn't it do more to encourage local food production and consumption? Thus reducing pollution while at the same time boosting farm economies in poorer countries which were previously flooded by lower-cost imports from richer highly efficient food-producing countries?
> Wouldn't it do more to encourage local food production and consumption? Thus reducing pollution
No, local food production increases pollution. The lowest pollution is obtained when food is grown in the climate most suited to it.
Transportation energy (or pollution) is absolutely minuscule compared to energy used in growing the food.
Optimizing for transportation costs in food production is a horrible idea from an environmental point of view, because the other costs so dwarf it as to make it utterly irrelevant.
Yes, absolutely. There's a reason that growing the food in another country and shipping it is still cheaper than growing it locally. All those energy costs get compounded together in the final cost of the product, and typically being cheaper means it cost less energy. (There are other factors that come into play of course, like farm subsidies.)
I agree that you need to grow food suitable for the climate you are in. How does this clash with local food production? If you locally grow food that is adapted to your climate, surely that's the best solution?
I have difficulty believing that eating imported pineapples in the UK pollutes less than eating local apples
> If you locally grow food that is adapted to your climate, surely that's the best solution?
So what you are saying is no one should eat bread in the UK? (The UK is not great at growing wheat.) I don't need to give a lot of examples, you get my point I hope.
> I have difficulty believing that eating imported pineapples in the UK pollutes less than eating local apples
Do apples grow well in the UK? Do you need lots of chemicals to grow them? (Pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, etc, etc.) Do you need to spend a lot of time (i.e. energy) managing the trees, or do they just grow themself?
Importing a pineapple costs basically nothing (both in terms of energy and money). If growing a pineapple in HI uses less stuff than growing an apple in the UK, then yah, eating imported pineapples pollutes less. (I don't know if that's the case or not.)
It's easy enough to tell: Just compare the cost of the fruit (per weight).
Local food production is a noble goal. Just sort of hoping that some industries will fail and force people to grow food locally, or starve, is not a very good strategy for achieving that goal.
It's a delicate curve. Perhaps gradually increasing tariffs can support the actual increase of local production. Perhaps taxing oil consumption to subsidize poorer countries farmers is another way to go.
Me personally? Buying local food supports the local economy, providing some support for a local food supply. It's a little bit crazy, i know, but if something weird happened, at least some food could be sourced locally. Most farmland around me tends to get paved. So supporting local farmers helps a bit with wildlife habitat and gives rain a place to soak back into the aquifer. I can talk with farmers about what they spray on their food. Finally getting stuff right when its in season tastes really good. Sweet corn from the farmers market or the side of the road is just unreal about 1 week of the year. I can never quite catch that in the grocery store.
> Wouldn't it do more to encourage local food production and consumption?
It would, only by making food more expensive -- specifically, by driving up the transportation costs so that the more-expensive-to-produce local food was competitive with less-expensive-to-produce imported food. This might be pleasing to those with an ideological preference that other people should eat locally, but the other effect is increased cost of living for everyone.
Fresh food is better than preserved food, I won't argue that. But people got by with preserved food for a long, long time. We've gotten used to eating fruits and such out of season, but maybe that's going to get expensive again.
Which parts of the world would those be? From what I've read the problem is often the opposite - cheap grain imports from the USA destroying agricultural economies in Africa for example.
I really don't think there are large parts of the world that would not be viable through local agriculture.
Obviously, there will be islands etc for whom this isn't viable, but I doubt they were getting food by massive ships anyway.
Most of the northern hemisphere. You know, all those places where nothing grows for 6 months out of the year where prior to shipping food we had to rely on canned and preserved foods.
Come on... "Most of the northern hemisphere... where nothing grows for 6 months"? In northern finland maybe, due to lack of sunlight. They grow greenhouse tomatoes and cucumbers all year round in the Netherlands, and cabbage, spinach, root vegetables can be grown in winter without heating.
Decreased shipping wont change the culture of consumption - that will only end when the culture changes. My loosely held belief is that the ecology of the planet will only be saved because of capitalism.
We will only get to a sustainable ecology when 1) solar power provides energy for less than fossil fuels, 2) the majority of human women have control of their fertility, and 3) the majority of humanity's basic needs are fulfilled enough that they can worry about the environment. #1 will lead to less pollution and climate restoration, #2 will lead to decreased or sustainable global population, and #3 will lead to the preservation and restoration of ecosystems. All of these things are only possible because of the wealth generated by capitalist economies.
