Reason has a review of a new movie, Low Impact Man, which details a family obsessed with minimizing its impact on the environment:
The problem with such an attitude is that it is, in a word, stupid. It's backwards, counter-productive and of only dubious benefit to the environment. Imagine that we all adopted this attitude and forsake trade, consuming only that which we could produce. We would be beholden to what we could grow in our gardens, live in hovels that only we could construct and wear only the clothing we could make.
Beyond rendering us all poor and disease-ridden, it wouldn't be particularly good for the environment either. Instead of obtaining our food from efficient farms, a multitude of garden plots would spring up, consuming vast amounts of wildlife habitat. Here in D.C., Rock Creek Park would likely be deforested and plowed under in no time flat. If you're concerned about rain forest destruction now, just wait until millions of Brazilians who work in factories or the service sector suddenly have to produce their own food. At least they would have access to food -- many of those in less fertile environments would simply starve (Iceland, Japan).
It may be tempting to dismiss this argument as overly extreme. After all, people who consume locally-grown food tend to define "local" as up to 100 miles away or more. But if closer is better, what can be more beneficial than one's own backyard?
The reality is that price is actually a very good proxy for the amount of resources consumed to produce a particular product, and thus its environmental impact. The cheaper something is the more likely it is better for the environment, as price reflects the cost of inputs. If an apple from Washington is cheaper than one from Maryland, a resident of D.C. is better off buying the former. We should always reward efficiency, which encourages doing more with less -- something inherently good for the environment.
In fairness price doesn't always tell the whole story. One product might be cheaper than another because the producer dumped its toxic waste in a river rather than more appropriate -- and expensive -- disposal. That's a failure of regulation, not capitalism.
It's also possible that the cheaper price is a result of lower labor costs, which is a reason many goods from China are cheaper than those made here in the U.S. However, depriving someone of a job from another country doesn't help save the planet. Indeed, as poor countries become wealthier there tends to be a corresponding improvement in the environment. Only the rich can afford hybrid cars or solar powered homes.
If you want to promote a greener lifestyle, focus more on the price tag than the sticker indicating where it's made.
Colin Beavan and his two-year-old daughter Isabella are in the bathroom cleaning out mommy's cosmetics when they decide to wash their laundry by stomping their feet on a tub full of clothes and all-natural Borax detergent. It's one of the many inconvenient and impractical things Beavan and his family do in the new documentary No Impact Man. Beavan explains that he normally thinks in terms of "collective action" because "as a liberal" he's weak on "individual action." The film chronicles his attempt to "develop and live a no impact lifestyle" for one year in the middle of New York City.While the Beavans may be an extreme example, we probably all know someone with at least a somewhat similar attitude or have been exposed to such thinking. I know a guy who refuses to purchase anything made outside the U.S. and only eats locally grown food in an effort to help the environment. In middle school I had a teacher who distributed hand-outs which contrasted the gluttony of Americans with more virtuous Indians, who had both a lower caloric intake and lower consumption of almost all goods. Various religious orders mandate their members take a vow of poverty and eschew private possessions.
The Beavans give up toilet paper, any products with packaging, cars and public transit, elevators, plastic bags, and shopping for anything new. In addition, they won't use washing machines, disposable diapers, or food grown outside a 250-mile radius of NYC. It's an ambitious plan and the Beavans engage it in more dramatic phases over time. At the six-month mark, Beavan turns off the electricity in his apartment, relying instead on the small amount of juice produced by a solar panel on his roof (which allows him to blog and video chat). The film follows the family as they take a variety of steps to move in the direction of minimizing their impact on the environment.
The problem with such an attitude is that it is, in a word, stupid. It's backwards, counter-productive and of only dubious benefit to the environment. Imagine that we all adopted this attitude and forsake trade, consuming only that which we could produce. We would be beholden to what we could grow in our gardens, live in hovels that only we could construct and wear only the clothing we could make.
Beyond rendering us all poor and disease-ridden, it wouldn't be particularly good for the environment either. Instead of obtaining our food from efficient farms, a multitude of garden plots would spring up, consuming vast amounts of wildlife habitat. Here in D.C., Rock Creek Park would likely be deforested and plowed under in no time flat. If you're concerned about rain forest destruction now, just wait until millions of Brazilians who work in factories or the service sector suddenly have to produce their own food. At least they would have access to food -- many of those in less fertile environments would simply starve (Iceland, Japan).
It may be tempting to dismiss this argument as overly extreme. After all, people who consume locally-grown food tend to define "local" as up to 100 miles away or more. But if closer is better, what can be more beneficial than one's own backyard?
The reality is that price is actually a very good proxy for the amount of resources consumed to produce a particular product, and thus its environmental impact. The cheaper something is the more likely it is better for the environment, as price reflects the cost of inputs. If an apple from Washington is cheaper than one from Maryland, a resident of D.C. is better off buying the former. We should always reward efficiency, which encourages doing more with less -- something inherently good for the environment.
In fairness price doesn't always tell the whole story. One product might be cheaper than another because the producer dumped its toxic waste in a river rather than more appropriate -- and expensive -- disposal. That's a failure of regulation, not capitalism.
It's also possible that the cheaper price is a result of lower labor costs, which is a reason many goods from China are cheaper than those made here in the U.S. However, depriving someone of a job from another country doesn't help save the planet. Indeed, as poor countries become wealthier there tends to be a corresponding improvement in the environment. Only the rich can afford hybrid cars or solar powered homes.
If you want to promote a greener lifestyle, focus more on the price tag than the sticker indicating where it's made.
No comments:
Post a Comment