Jan 30 2007
Fair trade flies into air miles row
The two great fashionable campaigns of our age are to help people out of poverty,and to make the world a greener place.
Our Prime Minister is signed up to both. He now has to make one of those hard choices.
The best way of helping the poor of the world out of poverty is to promote freer and fairer trade. That requires more ships and planes to take their produce to the rich markets of North Amrica and Europe.
One man’s food miles is another man’s lifeline of hope to Africa.
Maybe the best way out of the dilemma is to encourage people to buy far less food from the mainland of Europe, requiring long and dirty lorry journeys to get it to us. We could combine more local produce with more fair trade and free trade produce from Africa dn Asia, coming most of the way by ship.
I look forward to hearing the Prime Minsiter’s answer to the dilemma - for he was so keen on both causes at the G8.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
“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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]