Geoff Davies' Home Page

Costly, Unsustainable Waste

We are paying a premium for our large ecological footprints, and reducing them requires not just driving less but changing our infrastructure and reversing globalisation.

29 August 2002

Travel broadens the mind, and a recent visit to California stimulated some reflections on the sustainability of our Aussie lifestyle - a topical subject with the World Summit on Sustainable Development currently playing out in Johannesburg.

As it happens, we stayed with family in Sonoma County, a little north of San Francisco, where the local residents were perturbed recently to learn that their ecological footprint is 8.8 hectares (22 acres) per capita. This means that it takes about 8.8 hectares of land of average global productivity to supply Sonomans' food, shelter, transportation and other goods and services. The trouble is that there is only about 2.3 hectares of productive land per person in the world, so if everyone tried to live like these Sonomans, we'd need three more planets like Earth.

As we all know, Northern Californians tend to be into coffee, health food, pagan spirituality and environmental awareness, so many Sonomans were disturbed to learn that in spite of their cycling, recycling and organic food consumption they are stomping so heavily on Mother Gaia.

As an outsider, it was easy for me to come up with a list of suggestions on how Sonomans could improve themselves. However before I settle too comfortably into my Canberra smugness, perhaps I should note that your average Aussie's ecological footprint is about 7.5 hectares, and that our greenhouse gas emissions per capita are far and away the highest in the world, 35% ahead of our nearest rivals - the Americans.

Still, it can be revealing to see how others live. What is immediately striking in California is the size of their vehicles. A large fraction of the vehicles on the freeways is SUVs - Sport Utility Vehicles in Detroit-speak. These comprise roughly equal numbers of four-wheel-drives and pickup trucks. The 4WDs are the same or bigger than ours, while the pickups are much bigger, with huge, roaring, gas-guzzling engines to match.

A 4WD or an empty pickup would not seem to be much use on a freeway, but a little research on the nearest commercial TV station will reveal that people feel secure in a bigger vehicle. This feeling is not supported by statistics, but never mind. People also feel better if they're looking over the top of everyone else.

Whether a potentially drowning Bangladeshi would consider these reasons to be sufficient for risking global warming is a good question, but I didn't see any Bangladeshis in Sonoma County, wet or dry. But let's take the part of our Bangladeshi for a moment and ask what it would cost Californians to reduce the risk of warming the globe and flooding Bangladesh.

If everyone in California drove a vehicle only half as big as what they have, it would make very little difference to their safety or to their one-person-per-vehicle mobility. True, it might cost extra to rent a 4WD or a pickup on those few occasions when they really need one, but this would be more than compensated by the lower cost of a smaller vehicle. Even better, the freeways would not be so choked and people would get to work faster.

Is it possible that reducing Californian's greenhouse gas emissions in this way would actually save money? And improve their lifestyle at the same time? Well, yes. In fact they would be living like the average Frenchman, whose ecological footprint is a little over half that of the average American's, and whose life expectancy is slightly greater.

Food also is a large contributor to our ecological footprint. There are several reasons for this. One is that we eat so much meat, and another is that agriculture has become energy intensive. A relatively new factor is that our food is transported, on average, hundreds or thousand of kilometers to our local supermarket. All of that transportation is costly as well as wasteful.

If we buy locally-grown food at the local produce market, it will often be cheaper, fresher and of better quality - and we will eliminate the hidden cost to the Earth (and ourselves) of all that unnecessary transportation. Again, saving the Earth can save us money even as our quality of life is improved.

Of course buying local products is contrary to the trend of globalisation, which we are told is making us all rich. So will buying local make us backward and poor? I don't think so. It's true that globalisation often yields cheaper goods in the shop, but the catch is that the price doesn't reflect all of the costs of the globalised way of doing business.

The case of U.S. giant retailer Wal-Mart is symptomatic. Wal-Mart is the world's biggest retailer, and rapidly growing bigger as it spreads out of its base in North America. The Wal-Mart way is to build a vast store on the edge of town. It's prices are low, so it quickly kills off main-street small businesses. Then everyone has to drive further to do their shopping. Some people call it Sprawl-Mart.

Wal-Mart pays minimum wages, which in the U.S. are so low that many of its employees are eligible for food stamps. This means that Wal-Mart's workforce is directly subsidised by tax payers. Wal-Mart is also alleged to engage in questionable practices, such as illegally discouraging union activity and avoiding paying benefits to employees, who are typically casual or short-term anyway. Thus it degrades the quality of employment.

Wal-Mart's goods are cheap because of its immense market power. Suppliers can't resist its demands, so they cut their own costs by all means possible, and especially by sourcing products from poor Third World countries. This is ironic, to say the least, because Wal-Mart has adopted a super patriotic all-American marketing theme. Wal-Mart denies that its goods are being produced by child labour, prison labour and underpaid sweat shop labour, but it is clear that it makes little effort to police its suppliers.

If the Wal-Mart example seems remote from us, be warned: it is our future and it is near. The rapidly encroaching German chain Aldi is the local equivalent. Through sprawl, exploitation and wasteful transportation, they impose hidden costs on customers, workers and the Earth.

So reducing our ecological footprint requires more than driving less and buying local. It means we need to pay attention to local zoning laws, and it means we need to resist the mindless globalisation process that is being foisted upon us.

The incentive is that we can save money and live better even as we save the Earth. Putting it the other way around, the alternative is to continue to pay extra to degrade our lifestyle and trash the Earth.

____________________________

You can check your own ecological footprint at http://www.myfootprint.org .


	Costly, Unsustainable Waste We are paying a premium for our large ecological footprints, and reducing them requires not just driving less but changing our infrastructure and reversing globalisation. 29 August 2002 Travel broadens the mind, and a recent visit to California stimulated some reflections on the sustainability of our Aussie lifestyle - a topical subject with the World Summit on Sustainable Development currently playing out in Johannesburg. As it happens, we stayed with family in Sonoma County, a little north of San Francisco, where the local residents were perturbed recently to learn that their ecological footprint is 8.8 hectares (22 acres) per capita. This means that it takes about 8.8 hectares of land of average global productivity to supply Sonomans' food, shelter, transportation and other goods and services. The trouble is that there is only about 2.3 hectares of productive land per person in the world, so if everyone tried to live like these Sonomans, we'd need three more planets like Earth. As we all know, Northern Californians tend to be into coffee, health food, pagan spirituality and environmental awareness, so many Sonomans were disturbed to learn that in spite of their cycling, recycling and organic food consumption they are stomping so heavily on Mother Gaia. As an outsider, it was easy for me to come up with a list of suggestions on how Sonomans could improve themselves. However before I settle too comfortably into my Canberra smugness, perhaps I should note that your average Aussie's ecological footprint is about 7.5 hectares, and that our greenhouse gas emissions per capita are far and away the highest in the world, 35% ahead of our nearest rivals - the Americans. Still, it can be revealing to see how others live. What is immediately striking in California is the size of their vehicles. A large fraction of the vehicles on the freeways is SUVs - Sport Utility Vehicles in Detroit-speak. These comprise roughly equal numbers of four-wheel-drives and pickup trucks. The 4WDs are the same or bigger than ours, while the pickups are much bigger, with huge, roaring, gas-guzzling engines to match. A 4WD or an empty pickup would not seem to be much use on a freeway, but a little research on the nearest commercial TV station will reveal that people feel secure in a bigger vehicle. This feeling is not supported by statistics, but never mind. People also feel better if they're looking over the top of everyone else. Whether a potentially drowning Bangladeshi would consider these reasons to be sufficient for risking global warming is a good question, but I didn't see any Bangladeshis in Sonoma County, wet or dry. But let's take the part of our Bangladeshi for a moment and ask what it would cost Californians to reduce the risk of warming the globe and flooding Bangladesh. If everyone in California drove a vehicle only half as big as what they have, it would make very little difference to their safety or to their one-person-per-vehicle mobility. True, it might cost extra to rent a 4WD or a pickup on those few occasions when they really need one, but this would be more than compensated by the lower cost of a smaller vehicle. Even better, the freeways would not be so choked and people would get to work faster. Is it possible that reducing Californian's greenhouse gas emissions in this way would actually save money? And improve their lifestyle at the same time? Well, yes. In fact they would be living like the average Frenchman, whose ecological footprint is a little over half that of the average American's, and whose life expectancy is slightly greater. Food also is a large contributor to our ecological footprint. There are several reasons for this. One is that we eat so much meat, and another is that agriculture has become energy intensive. A relatively new factor is that our food is transported, on average, hundreds or thousand of kilometers to our local supermarket. All of that transportation is costly as well as wasteful. If we buy locally-grown food at the local produce market, it will often be cheaper, fresher and of better quality - and we will eliminate the hidden cost to the Earth (and ourselves) of all that unnecessary transportation. Again, saving the Earth can save us money even as our quality of life is improved. Of course buying local products is contrary to the trend of globalisation, which we are told is making us all rich. So will buying local make us backward and poor? I don't think so. It's true that globalisation often yields cheaper goods in the shop, but the catch is that the price doesn't reflect all of the costs of the globalised way of doing business. The case of U.S. giant retailer Wal-Mart is symptomatic. Wal-Mart is the world's biggest retailer, and rapidly growing bigger as it spreads out of its base in North America. The Wal-Mart way is to build a vast store on the edge of town. It's prices are low, so it quickly kills off main-street small businesses. Then everyone has to drive further to do their shopping. Some people call it Sprawl-Mart. Wal-Mart pays minimum wages, which in the U.S. are so low that many of its employees are eligible for food stamps. This means that Wal-Mart's workforce is directly subsidised by tax payers. Wal-Mart is also alleged to engage in questionable practices, such as illegally discouraging union activity and avoiding paying benefits to employees, who are typically casual or short-term anyway. Thus it degrades the quality of employment. Wal-Mart's goods are cheap because of its immense market power. Suppliers can't resist its demands, so they cut their own costs by all means possible, and especially by sourcing products from poor Third World countries. This is ironic, to say the least, because Wal-Mart has adopted a super patriotic all-American marketing theme. Wal-Mart denies that its goods are being produced by child labour, prison labour and underpaid sweat shop labour, but it is clear that it makes little effort to police its suppliers. If the Wal-Mart example seems remote from us, be warned: it is our future and it is near. The rapidly encroaching German chain Aldi is the local equivalent. Through sprawl, exploitation and wasteful transportation, they impose hidden costs on customers, workers and the Earth. So reducing our ecological footprint requires more than driving less and buying local. It means we need to pay attention to local zoning laws, and it means we need to resist the mindless globalisation process that is being foisted upon us. The incentive is that we can save money and live better even as we save the Earth. Putting it the other way around, the alternative is to continue to pay extra to degrade our lifestyle and trash the Earth. ____________________________ You can check your own ecological footprint at http://www.myfootprint.org .