4 responses

1. 

   Sam Fortescue

   April 11, 2005

   Oh dear. It sounds as if you’ve missed the point. If people don’t buy their food from local sources, they must realise what that entails in terms of food miles, pollution, monoculture, environmental damage etc.
   The problem is not just that consumers will not support British agriculture, but that they don’t seem to understand what the alternatives are. Can it be normal to buy mangetouts in winter by flying them from Kenya? You may say it’s helpful for the Kenyan economy, but surely it would be better to support more *sustainable* economic activities in developing countries?
   Food doesn’t come from the supermarket; that’s just its final staging post en route to your kitchen table!
   Tim adds: No, I understand it very well thank you. To work out how many resources are used to make something you only need to look at its price. If British organic meat is more expensive than imported, then it is using more resources in its creation. Things like food miles are the creation of people who want to obscure this basic economic fact. For the price of the transport is already included in the price.

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   lth

   April 11, 2005

   Here’s another vote for Tim missing the point. Of course the UK soil association would encourage people to buy from its members precisely because of the price. But not because the price is higher, but because it’s lower. The only difference is that the price you’re talking about is the price for you to buy it, whereas the price I’m talking about is the cost to the environment for you to buy it – and no, those are not the same.
   Tim adds: Then the answer is to tax the environmental externalities so that the price paid equals the true cost. No problem with that, none at all. Just want to see the numbers justified, that’s all.

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   Jim

   April 11, 2005

   So when you say that “the answer is to tax the environmental externalities so that the price paid equals the true cost”, you do realise that’s not what happens at the moment, yes? Which was Sam’s point, and the Soil Association’s point. So why pretend that price is the only relevant factor when it’s obvious that the price does not factor in all the costs?
   Tim adds: In general, taxation (where other methods are not available) should be used to make sure that externalities are taxed. Whether they are covered on food at present is something rather different, something for Sam and the Soil Association to prove, not something for either to assert.
   For example, with food miles, it would be very difficult to state that the rate of Derv taxation in this country (indeed, in W Europe as a whole) means that transport externalities from ooh, Denmark to here are not covered.
   It might be that the airfreight costs from Kenya to here are not, as aviation fuel is untaxed.
   Which is why food miles is a bad way of looking at the problem, if problem there be.

   Loading…

   Reply
4. 

   Sam Fortescue

   November 29, 2005

   Tim, I have to disagree (again). Food miles are not an invention designed to obscure economic theory (I dispute the term fact).
   Food miles are a way of putting a value on something which people seem determined to ignore. damage done to the environment now will have to be righted at some point, and that will have a huge cost. In a sense we are taking out an ever-increasing mortgage now by ignoring that.
   Anything that can be done to recognise the true cost – albeit one that is only realised in 5, 10 or 50 years’ time – is a good thing.
   If you want to talk about it in economic language that the more narrow-minded can understand, why not start by levying an eco-tax on economic activity proportionate to the damage it does to the environment?
   I am not a die-hard tree-hugger, but I think we’re acting rather like spoilt children to ignore the consequences of our actions. Consumers must make it clear to business that such an attitude is not acceptable.

   Loading…

   Reply