Buy green

Local goods provide local employment, develop local skills, save foreign exchange, need less transport and give us more control over compliance with sustainability and environmental standards. However, economies of scale and superior productivity have concentrated too much manufacturing in China resulting in goods that are enticingly cheaper. It must be pointed out that the price of goods does not reflect their true cost because the environmental degradation and pollution associated with their manufacture are not included in the pricing. The world also pays a social cost (in terms of loss of jobs and skills) for the heavy concentration of manufacturing in China. A better balance between local and imported goods would be preferable.

Free range goods are produced in a healthy environment: chickens or eggs would not be batch produced, for example. Organic farming does not use environmentally damaging chemicals. The higher cost of free range and organic goods is offset by the health benefits. Fast food may be tasty, but it should not be our staple diet for nutritional reasons. Fairtrade goods are sustainably produced with higher social and environmental standards (4). Although the cost is usually at a premium to other goods, the Fairtrade label ensures that the producer receives a fair price. Fairer trade too, is key to reducing poverty: unfair trade costs the developing world US$700 billion a year and its share of global trade has halved since 1980. Rich countries spend US$280 billion a year to subsidise their farming enterprises while developing countries face trade barriers that are up to four times higher than those faced by rich countries (20).

Why is there a drive to reduce our meat consumption? A United Nation’s report ‘Livestock’s long shadow’ (21) concluded that ‘the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to environmental problems, at every scale from local to global’. The report found that livestock contributes 18% to global greenhouse gas emissions and uses 26% of the terrestrial surface while 33% of arable land is used for growing crops to feed livestock. In fact ‘36% of the calories produced by the world’s crops is used as animal feed’ and ‘in the US two thirds go to animal feed’ (22). The global meat industry may also be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity. It is certainly a major polluter, with the run-off from fertilisers and animal waste contaminating water systems and creating dead zones. The same UN report also states that 70% of the Amazon has been deforested as a result. Let us hope that is an over estimate.

It is also a health issue as CWG cautions (1.2):

God: ‘People ingest animals and fat and wonder why they get blocked arteries.’

Furthermore, raising animals for meat requires massive amounts of water. ‘Since 1960, 25% of Central Americas rain forests have been burned and cleared to graze beef cattle’ (23). The United Kingdom’s Institute for Mechanical Engineers (IME) reports that it takes 15 400 litres (L) of water – a precious resource - to produce 1 kilogram (kg) of beef, but only 2 500 L to produce 1 kg of rice, 1 600 L to produce 1 kg of bread or 300 L for 1 kg of potatoes (24, 25). Too bad the same report points to chocolate as being the biggest culprit: 17 200 L to produce 1 kg!

It also takes 9000 L to produce a chicken and ‘something like 4 L to produce a one litre plastic bottle for water. . . in the United Kingdom alone we bought, drank and threw away 9 billion plastic water bottles (in 2012). That is 36 billion litres of water, used completely unnecessarily.’ (5) Even if the number of bottles purchased seems inordinate, the message is clear.

Becoming a vegan or a vegetarian would be best, but for many of us who enjoy a barbeque and need the protein, a decision to at least eat less meat would certainly help to reduce our food footprint. The way that Asians use a small quantity of meat as a flavourant rather than as a staple in their cooking is a good example to follow.

A recent 2013 Greenpeace campaign targeted a well-known United States company that makes shampoo as it was clearing Indonesian rainforest to grow palm oil plantations. This was a threat to the last remaining Sumatran tigers and orang-utans. Fortunately the company backed down after public pressure but much damage had already been done.

During a recent visit, TV presenter Jeanette Thomas adopted three orphan orang-utans and recounts: ‘Flying over Sumatra and into Jambi only serves to cement what I already know. This is palm oil country. This is a place that has lost 80% of its forest to deforestation, logging, pulp and paper and palm oil in the last 20 years. It’s lost almost its entire orang-utan population too.’ (26) Palm oil is used in bio-diesel, ice-cream and shampoo amongst other uses.

Always remember that we can make informed choices in our purchasing decisions.

NZ Herald

Our purchasing decisions are powerful. We could buy goods produced locally (if possible) and in an ecologically sustainable way. Consuming less meat is better for the environment and rather not buy fish species that face extinction. Choose organic goods if you can afford them. Select products with certification systems that provide some protection for people and the environment such as those endorsed by Fairtrade and the Forest Stewardship Council. Similarly, all goods should be rated on their compliance with minimum environmental standards. Give preference to ethical companies.