Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Value$ and $ense, and Our Food and Energy ChoicesGreetings, and Happy New Year!
As we enter the New Year, The Light Connection (TLC) enters its 22 nd year. Thanks for your support in helping us complete 21 years. That's actually quite a feat for a small magazine.
While the year ended with a lot of seemingly diverse issues prominent in the news, I have to think there is a common thread to several of them. One issue, of course, is the Middle East. Isn't it great that Washington is at least up to saying “it's not working” in Iraq and looking at alternatives? It is refreshing that some are acknowledging the limitations of military action and reflecting on what we can do differently.
Another year-end topic in California is the new law that will bring us more solar energy. The State will spend $3.4 billion over the next ten years to subsidize the installation of one million solar roofs. At peak capacity that's like having six more power plants. More could be done, but that's always the case. They always leave us with the next opportunity.
Another topic in the news is the rapid movement toward buying organic foods, fairtrade products, and from local farmers.
There is a common thread to these issues that much of the media, don't seem to be weaving together or understand yet.
This is demonstrated when they suggest reasons why. When buying wind energy gift cards became popular at Whole Foods, for instance, the media stated that people were doing so to relieve their guilt.
Another headline on a Dec. 11 article in the SDU-T was similar: “Eco-conscious consumers pay to ease global warming guilt.”
Yes, I'm sure people did tell them they did it because it made them feel that they were doing something to make a difference or help the environment, and they felt good about it.
But does it necessarily follow that this is the path of the guilt-ridden? Or do people simply feel good when they make what they consider to be environmentally sound choices?
I'm been wondering, if buying all of that “strange food” does erase guilt, maybe they should be writing about that.
Really challenging the thinking of many of us was The Economist magazine (Dec. 9–15), who put on their cover at the top, “Why ethical food harms the planet.”
They missed a few things. When stating that using synthetic fertilizer means using less land for growing and lessens the need to destroy rainforest, they ignore any affect that fertilizer has on the environment.
There's a lot to be addressed in that article, but I'm sure the different food groups—other than carbs, fruits, vegetables, etc.—will respond and do a better job than I can; but some of their assumptions do need more attention.
More than anything, they challenge the idea that consumers can influence The Marketplace by voting as they shop. Worse than that, consumers are mucking things up when they do that—according to this model of economics, anyway.
It must be nice to have a view of the world that reality never interrupts your business. We're doing it wrong when we go against their economic model. Besides, changes are best made at the ballot box, they contend.
In Great Brittan, however, voting works dramatically differently than in the US. They seem to forget that we have a winner-take-all system. In their system a minor party could get 25% of the vote and then earn a similar percentage of seats in their legislature. In the US, what percent you get makes no difference when someone else gets a higher percentage. So unlike Great Brittan, we may have to make our voices heard a little differently.
One thing I do want to address from The Economist is how they explain people's motivations. They asked people if they bought organic, or fairtrade products or bought from local growers because it was better for the environment or better for their health. The majority said the environment. Their article mainly addressed environmental issues—“why ethical food harms the planet.”
But how do you separate health and the environment? Besides, is it surprising that people said the environment? Would we expect people to say: “I do it only because it makes me healthier.” Or would that be the response of a sociopath? I expect that this demographic might, more than every once in a while, consider the effect of its actions on others—and the environment.
Now it may be that there are some people who focus on keeping the environment clean simply so fish and animals can survive. Others may have serious health issue that they feel are best resolved by eating differently. But don't most of us want a clean water supply and clean, pollution-free air so we can drink and breathe without harming ourselves? Or seeing our loved ones get sick? It's certainly not that my car is so sensitive that it runs better on clean air so I want it “breathing” clean air. We want our air and water pollution-free so it's not poisoning us .
For The Economist , it's about forcing economic efficiency through our greed or acting in our best self-interest according to a world-view that hasn't changed in a while—while the world has. When we buy fairtrade because we want to help those farmers get a fair wage, we get in the way of The System's ability to weed out inefficiency. But isn't the definition of what's valuable simply being expanded?
Some of us have different motivations. For some of us, value and sense is not the same as dollars and cents.
When it is about food or energy, many of us apply a different set of values, and some don't seem to understand that yet. Is it about health or the environment? Well, was it the chicken or the egg?
What we hope our food and energy choices do is choose a healthy environment so we are healthy as a result. What we hear way too much about is the cost as measured in dollars and cents. What we don't see enough is the true cost. That's what I thought economists did. Calculate costs.
People figure how long it will take to pay off installing solar panels. Is it worth it? They let the math tell them.
People seem to forget the cost of asthma, emphysema and lung cancer. If using solar panels means fewer hydrocarbons are in the air, how much is that worth?
When it comes to energy options, it's time to calculate the costs that we all face as a society. There is something lacking in an economic system that doesn't measure the health of the society and the true costs of our choices.
Can we do more? Last year alone, Germany subsidized the installation of 837 megawatts of photovoltaic solar systems. In sunny California, only 180 megawatts have been installed.
One thing The Economist got right was that it is easier for the government to make the big changes. But when we don't have a lot of support or choices, then you get creative. Vote with your dollar. Mess up The System. It does get their attention.
Our food choices and energy choices are hard to separate. It doesn't make sense to measure strictly in dollars and cents. Even if we did, wouldn't medical costs tip the scales in favor of paying a bit more now? In terms of suffering, there is no cost comparison. Both food and energy come down to: No more poisons.
The final reason we should emphasize sense over cents when we make our energy choices should be very clear: As long as we depend on oil, we feed wars. Over 50% of our imported oil comes from unstable or authoritarian regimes. These countries are supported by our energy buying choices, and by our government's unwillingness to impose higher fuel standards or do much of anything to move us in another direction. Therefore, we're it .
Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
