Each day that passes it becomes clear to me that climate change will continue to have a devastating impact on our over-indulgent capitalism economies. I know that is a lot to say all at once, but please, hear me out on this.
An important piece to the underbelly of capitalism is the concept of ‘supply and demand.’ As such, a company or industry will only grow in capital (i.e. money) as the demand increases for the particular product. The demand of a product will determine the affordability and accessibility of the supply.
A good example of this is grass-fed beef. Beyond the role of subsidies (another interesting part of American capitalism), the affordability and access to pastured beef is minimal. To say that most people don’t know what it is is an understatement. Not only do most folks have no understanding of pastured animal products, the cost of such goods prevents anyone from wanting to learn more. Why pay 5$ for a pound of beef when you can also get it at 2$ a pound? If, on the other hand, this beef product were 2$ a pound there would not only be competition, but there may also be a steady increase in demand. Eventually though, a big problem arises – is there enough supply to keep up with demand?
Take for example, an article I read this evening on the National Public Radio (NPR) website. Written by Greg Allen, “Fisherman Reeling Over Red Snapper Fishing Ban“ is a news report about a recent federal fishing ban along the coasts of Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. According to a recent study by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the population of red snapper along Southeastern United State’s coasts is massively depleted. Due to the severity of the data provided by the study (i.e. population is 3% what it was 60 years ago), the federal government passed a fishing ban, which began today – January 4, 2010.
Whether or not the information is accurate, I think both sides would agree that the popularity of this fish poses a threat to its existence. It’s far easier to increase the demand than it is the supply. Thus, the local economies thrive on the fishing season. And so the report develops into a story on the conflict of interest – local economies that rely on this fishing industry vs. the government’s desire to save portions of the environment. For me, this begs the question,
Are we – the models of mass consumption – going to change our ways? And at what cost will this decision occur?
Much of the article discusses the frustration of local fisherman in this dilemma. On the one hand, I totally understand that their economy relies on the tourism of red snapper season. At the same time, at what point would this community realize that fishing is not a sustainable means of creating capital?
Why do we wait till the worst-case scenario to try and change our ways? For a people that prides itself on sacrifice, we sure are quick to destroy the environment so that we don’t have to sacrifice our way of life.
Related posts:
- The Fine Line of Preachiness
- Local Food Movement Gains Serious Support
- The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
- Living off the grid
- Drink Soda, Get Fat or “Don’t Drink Yourself Fat”
Tags: fish, Food Politics, local food movement
You’ve probably heard the term “watermelon environmentalist?” It refers to someone who is green on the outside, but red on the inside. The notion that environmentalism is another gateway to socialism or even communism has been a long time challenge, but it seems very clear that regulation by mandate or law is necessary and that the tragedy of the commons will be a reality for Americans for as long as we hold on to the “I’m gonna get mine” mentality.
I’ve been heartened to see some movement on the part of businesses to embrace sustainability practices for long-term planning and greening their business beyond mere greenwashing, and likewise by environmental groups to frame discussions in the context that makes sense to consumers. Sadly, this seems to have also renewed a somewhat malicious, cut-of-my-nose-to-spite-my-face response from people about factoring environmental concerns in cost decisions.
I think we wait until it’s too late because we actually want our Government to either limit us or try to salvage the pieces. In keeping with the tragedy of the commons, it means it’s not us that is giving up on an opportunity by limiting use/intake when others take advantage. Plus, we can complain about the restrictive government being at fault.
My daughter is now old enough to sit through The Lorax. She doesn’t understand any of it, but it’s a beautiful illustration of this issue. Plus, reading it is fun.