"free trade need to be subordinated to sustainable policies for the survival of humanity."
This is something I really don’t understand about you Greens (ie, the political party, not environmentalists in general). What is it that you’ve got against trade? By the division of labour and the subsequent trading of the production, for any given level of resource use we get a higher standard of living. Or, for any given standard of living, we use fewer resources.
Since you’re all concerned about the use of resources, I really don’t get the antipathy to trade. Why do you oppose the very thing which gives what you want, lower resource use?
8 responses so far ↓
1 MarkS // Feb 20, 2008 at 9:53 am
I think you miss the point, Tim. The saving of the environment is not the issue here. The argument is with higher standards of living. If someone is enjoying a higher standard of living then (in the Green mind) it is concomitant that someone else must have a lower standard of living in order to fund the imbalance. It’s all about ying and yang. I don’t believe these people give a stuff about the environment, it’s merely the same old communist nonsense hiding under a green blanket. They’re trying to get the world to sign up for their distasteful social creed by disguising it in a cloak of green respectability. I used to do a similar trick with my children’s vegetables in order to get them to eat them.
2 Kay Tie // Feb 20, 2008 at 10:32 am
The Greens aren’t greens, they’re Communists. The greens ought to be annoyed by this.
3 AntiCitizenOne // Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Kay Tie is right. They are melons, not greens.
4 john b // Feb 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm
There’s an element of authoritarianism (and of pastoral Blake-ish nostalgia) in the Green Party, sure - but the more sensible ones believe that the current prices associated with free trade don’t reflect the true costs.
As Jim says, when shipping uses 5% of global energy consumption, there’s got to be a question of whether that’s really the best use of resources (how taxed is fuel oil for large ships? Not very if at all, I suspect).
5 MarkS // Feb 20, 2008 at 12:24 pm
The problem is so much of the green argument is based on guesstimates. and people with an axe to grind will bend figures to fit their prejudice. It’s the dodgy green science that I find hard to swallow.
6 BlacquesJacquesShellacques // Feb 21, 2008 at 4:08 am
“there’s got to be a question of whether that’s really the best use of resources”
That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
There is no ‘best’ use of resources independent of subjective human wishes. Resources are not resources absent people wanting them, they are lumps of flint. The only thing that gives value is human desire. Value is the very definition of human desire.
Jesus H. Fuckin Christ, I am stunned.
7 Venture Creature // Jul 1, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Since production uses (US analysis) 83% of energy used in food production, compared to 11% for wholesale distribution, it is most likely ‘greener’ to choose produce that is far away but produced with less energy - perhaps because it is warmer clime not requiring a greenhouse. But that requires rational analysis.
8 john b // Jul 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.”
No, you’re an idiot.
Let’s assume petrol is taxed at £1,000,000 a gallon when used for fuel, but is tax-free for tramps to drink. Therefore, most petrol is bought by tramps to drink and very little is used for fuel.
Do you think:
a) this is the best use of resources;
b) this is not the best use of resources.
If b), then you agree with my point on shipping.
Leave a Comment