Dean’s Beans founder on the good effects of trade 13

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Wolverine Posted 10:41 am
   18 Aug 2008

   Making Money By Killing The EarthExcuse me, but how is "building (global) community and raising standards of living via long distance trade" a good thing from an environmental perspective?  Long distance trade is ecologically and environmentally harmful.  So what if people are making money at it?  This is supposed to be an environmental website.

   Permalink

2. 

   Erik Hoffner Posted 10:45 pm
   18 Aug 2008

   listenWolverine: listen to the audio linked above if you're so curious to hear how in the world direct trade with rural and indigenous people around the world is a good thing.
   Erik
   
   The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
   
   

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 3:57 am
   19 Aug 2008

   Come On ErikFirst, you refused to directly answer my question and instead directed me to a long audio.  That would be legitimate if the answer contained a long, complex explanation that you didn't want to reiterate here, but that was not at all the case.  Instead, the audio just makes my point: you claim that a certain business model provides certain economic benefits to certain people.  While this could be a good thing, it's not if it comes at the expense of the environment and ecosystems, which it does if it relies on long distance trade.  So my original point stands: you're arguing from a leftist point of view without any consideration for the environment.  This is a perfect example of where leftism and environmentalism part ways.
   Long distance trade needs to be greatly reduced and eventually virtually abolished.  The harms it causes are large and numerous.  If you want to drink coffee, go live where it's grown.

   Permalink

4. 

   JoeyJoeJoe Posted 5:20 am
   19 Aug 2008

   It's About BalanceWolverine-
   
   Where was the shirt you have on right now made?  Have you had any citrus fruit today and did that come from your back yard?  While we all strive to live as sustainably as possible, it is not realistic to expect us all to reject, right now, global trade flows upon which we all, like it or not, depend.  It's about balance and making intelligent choices that improve the world a little and minimize harm.  Dean's Beans is trying to help the world a little.  This is a good story, relax and enjoy it.  

   Permalink

5. 

   bbaue Posted 7:16 am
   19 Aug 2008

   Trade vs. Environment = false dichotomyBill Baue here, co-host of Corporate Watchdog Radio, where this interview originated.  Wolverine, I understand the contradiction you're positing, as I recently seriously considered giving up coffee because of the food-miles embedded in it.  I'm glad I first posed the question to Chris Landry of the Sustainability Institute (the Vermont-based think-do tank founded by "Limits to Growth" author Donella Meadows.)  You can check out the audio here: http://corporatewatchdogmedia.blogspot.com/2008/02/green- ...
   But to spare you from having to listen to it, Landry says that the positive social benefits of supporting low-income farmers COMBINED with the environmental benefits of ecosystem preservation with shade-grown coffee outweigh the carbon footprint of shipping coffee.   In other words, without viable business support, these farmers would likely be driven off the land in favor of clearcutting or monoculture crops, both of which have negative environmental impacts.

   Permalink

6. 

   Wolverine Posted 8:00 am
   19 Aug 2008

   Bill Baue Gives Good AnswerJoey does not.  Making false analogies between necessities like clothing and luxuries like coffee only serve to obfuscate real issues.  And while my citrus fruit doesn't come from my yard (we're renters in a big city, don't have much of a yard and no say in what little grows there), it comes from within my state, so it travels 200 miles tops, usually much less.  There's a huge difference between that and traveling thousands of miles, burning filthy bunker fuel, disturbing all the marine life in the oceans with noise, and causing harms from dredging and introduction of invasive species.
   As to Bill's claim, point taken, but there are other environmental issues here.  What about the other harms that I listed in the previous sentence?  You can't just obsess on global warming and carbon footprints; there are many other serious environmental harms caused by consumption and burning of petroleum products.  I'd like to see a comparison that takes all the harms of global trade into account, which include all harms from consumption of oil (ecosystem destruction and killing of animals from oil drilling and spills, toxic pollution caused by refining of oil, noise pollution from large ships, toxic pollution caused by dredging for large ships, etc.).

   Permalink

7. 

   Francesca Rheannon Posted 9:04 am
   19 Aug 2008

   Fair Trade and the EnvironmentFrancesca Rheannon here, the other co-host of Corporate Watchdog Radio. I just did an interview with Paul Roberts (END OF FOOD) and he talked about just this issue. Traveling fewer food miles does not necessarily mean a product is better for the planet, Roberts says. That's just one part of a product's carbon footprint. What's most important is how it is produced. The fair trade coffee that Dean Cycon buys is grown sustainably, both from an environmental and social standpoint. And coffee can only be grown in certain locations in the world, yet it's imbibed all over. So unless we decide that no one should drink it who doesn't live in a coffee-growing area, we should support fair trade, shade-grown, organic coffee like Dean sells.
   
   Francesca Rheannon
   
   

   Permalink

8. 

   Wolverine Posted 10:19 am
   19 Aug 2008

   That's The Idea!"[U]nless we decide that no one should drink it who doesn't live in a coffee-growing area ..."  BINGO!

   Permalink

9. 

   Wolverine Posted 10:21 am
   19 Aug 2008

   Don't Create False ChoicesWe should strive to limit our purchases to produce that is farmed organically or by even more Earth friendly methods band that is locally grown.  There's absolutely no reason that it has to be one or the other, and I'm getting quite sick of these anti-local jerks who are trying to convince people to forgo buying locally, for whatever hidden reasons they might have.

   Permalink

10. 

    spaceshaper Posted 11:00 am
    19 Aug 2008

    The BS machine's at it again.Where's your computer made, Wolverine? Your CD/MP3 player? The amps, speakers and mikes at the concerts you frequent? The bus, the bike, and even the shoes you use to get there?
    Or are these all exempt 'necessities' in your solipsistic world view too?
    
    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

    Permalink

11. 

    hoppekat Posted 1:04 am
    20 Aug 2008

    single-mindedness isn't the answerFair Trade and Buy Local advocates share many important concerns about the ways we can take back our food system so that it works best for small farmers and consumers, as well as care for our planet. Let's be careful not to create unnecessary wedges between the two movements who at their hearts and souls are trying to achieve the same goals. We need to work together, build one movement, and come up with creative and effective strategies. If not, it will be agribusiness - with their GMO seeds, harmful pesticides, and huge profits, that will continue to dictate how and what we grow, buy, eat... and live.
    Read a post about this very thing at http://eecampaign.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/local-and-fair ...
    
    

    Permalink

12. 

    swag Posted 4:33 am
    20 Aug 2008

    Single-mindedness comes in many forms@hoppekat re: "Let's be careful not to create unnecessary wedges between the two movements who at their hearts and souls are trying to achieve the same goals. We need to work together, build one movement, and come up with creative and effective strategies."
    While I clearly understand the political importance of bridging different interests to form a more powerful coalition, I don't buy the "same goals" argument. You could say that George Bush has the same goals in common with many members here in a number of contexts -- most of the arguments and differences stem in debates over means and not ends.
    And I personally resent the idea that anyone with a form of social or environmental empathy has to subscribe to some monolithic order requiring one to sign up for a combination platter of causes. For 16 years I've felt Fair Trade was always well intended but a failure in execution until something better comes along. And I'm not about to change my opinion on that in order to support environmental causes, and I'm not willing to forgo those environmental causes to rail against the problems of Fair Trade. It cannot be an all or nothing deal.
    The monolithic "green" is a myth. It creates a tyranny of opinion and does not allow for the fact that many people find some issues to be bogus and yet can wholly support other causes that may be inconveniently packaged together.

    Permalink

13. 

    Wolverine Posted 5:19 am
    20 Aug 2008

    Sharing ConcernsWhether we actually share the same concerns is the fundamental issue.  Leftists do not share many of the same issues as environmentalists.  As an environmentalist, my priority is protecting and restoring the natural environment.  A leftist priority would be lifting people out of poverty.  While we can agree with the others' goal, I would not in any way support lifting people out of poverty by causing further environmental or ecological harm.
    Supporting a program that relies on massive industrial transportation is a bad idea environmentally and I would never do so.
    First, the environment is my priority, which is one of the main things that identifies a real environmentalist.  For whatever environmental harm a program like this might prevent, it still causes massive environmental problems.  Second, there are much more environmentally friendly ways to lift people out of poverty.  For example, my wife and I donate money to a group that lends our donation to women in India.  The women use the money to buy sewing machines and start small businesses.  No massive industrial transportation or other harms needed.  These are the types of programs environmentalists can get behind, not something that contributes to major environmental harms.

    Permalink