Comments on: Fair trade flies into air miles row

By: Robin Smith

Robin Smith — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:25:31 +0000

I think we are in danger of making assumptions that support our beliefs here rather than looking at the facts and numbers.

First of all why ignore the facts? You are a victim of doctrine if you do (Ed). Ships might be more carbon efficient than over land if you consider the transport mechanism in a vaccum. But you cannot do this if you are seeking the entire lifecycle costs of a good or service. All externalities must be consdered. Until then its moot to make assumptions and irresponible to allude to guesswork. (JR)

There was a very provocative report in The Economist recently. I suggest we all read it. It may not all be correct but it enters the debate on Ethical Food very well and transparently. Something that has been lost both here and in the industry itself.

By: billy

billy — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:57:56 +0000

Ed Says:
January 30th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I think I remember a Greenpeace or Friends of the World report that concluded that it is greener to fly tomatoes (for example) in from places where they grow without assistance than to grow them under plastic in colder climes such as Northern Europe.

There’s two sources that are worth ignoring.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:19:49 +0000

I think I remember a Greenpeace or Friends of the World report that concluded that it is greener to fly tomatoes (for example) in from places where they grow without assistance than to grow them under plastic in colder climes such as Northern Europe.

By: Kit

Kit — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:09:35 +0000

“Fair Trade” is not compatible with free trade. Do not be fooled by the lefts use of phrases such as “Trade Justice” and “Fair Trade”. They are just socialist protectionism and collectivism dressed up in nice language.

Scrap the CAP.