Environment

Questioning the power of shopping

Dec

18

The Economist magazine is running an article that questions the idea that market forces (in the form of Free Trade and Organic purchases) can be a significant force for environmental change.

Among the points raised: organic farming lowers crop yields and hence will create greater pressure on wild land, Fair Trade distorts commodity prices and encourages farmers to over-specialize in crops that are already over produced.
They also question the notion of the food-mile by citing a report from DEFRA which shows that it is "better for the environment to truck in tomatoes from Spain during the winter, for example, than to grow them in heated greenhouses in Britain."


Comments

Sign Up to add comments

A thought provoking article from a great publication. However, in some arguments, the article tries a little too hard to reach its conclusion: "Conventional political activity may not be as enjoyable as shopping, but it is far more likely to make a difference."

For example, it discounts organic farming as low yield per acre, and therefore inefficient use of land. But it fails to mention the impact of high-input industrial farming, such as dead zones caused by excessive fertilization.

The evidence that some locally-grown produce is less energy efficient is interesting. But it neglects other reasons for buying locally, such as becoming more attached to your local ecology and building a relationship with your farmers.

Nonetheless, it challenges consumers to think hard about purchasing "beneficial" items when the benefit may not add up as big as its hype.