Money vs Environment

[DannyS]

I've been thinking on environmental issues for a while, mainly on how my activities such as international purchases and consumerism in general affect the environment that I wish to not only enjoy but to preserve for others to enjoy. I would be interested in others opinions on a question I have been asking myself;
I can purchase a new pair of shoes that can be obtained locally for $215, the very same shoes can be obtained internationally for $50 less(this includes delivery etc...)

What are people thoughts, as I write this question I feel like I have answered my own question for myself, but I'd be interested in what others think?

[DarrenM]

Money vs Environment vs Gouging retailer.....

Mmmm. Your heart may be in the right place but this is the global problem we face. Greedy people always place environmental issues second. Would your purchase make a difference? Not unless we all started bowing down to the gouge in which case I'd be broke.

I don't know too many people that take the moral high ground and pay double for everything they can. I'm all for the environment but this is a whole other issue.

[photohiker]

If the shoes are made in a country outside of Australia, I don't think there is much environmental impact (extra packaging and shipping method environmental costs over bulk delivery perhaps) but the main difference I see is financial. The extra goes to people (importers, distributors, retailers) in Australia.

The way I look at it is if the difference is around 20% I buy it locally to support the locals. Above that, and I buy it online. With your shoes, the other consideration is the ability to check sizing in a local store and the ease of warranty service should something go wrong. I wear through my regular hiking shoes so I generally would buy the first pair of a style in Australia and if they work out ok replacements will come from OS if there is a large price premium (which is generally the case, but not always. XUltra Mids are nearly the same price at Kathmandu and Amazon at the moment).

[SteveJ]

A first world problem really….

I live in a minimum footprint autonomous house that i built myself, 50% of it is recycled materials, it has built in deconstruction potential so it can be reused/recycled at the end of it's long life, I grow a high percentage of my own food, I am revegetating my ex dairy farm, have no children by choice, avoid consumerism, repair, recycle, reuse as much as I can, ride my bike when ever it's practical, buy local to reduce my footprint, contribute time and money to Landcare etc etc etc and I still need 2.5 planets to live the way I live!!! Doing the best I can and being mindful of the environment I still have a massive impact, the problem is there are 7 billion people on a small planet all having an impact, all the big problems we face are symptoms of overpopulation. We are going down this path for the last time and where you buy your shoes ain't gonna make much difference sadly.

Steve

[madmacca]

Let's think about this logically for a minute.

If they are the same brand and model of shoe, almost certainly it has come out of the same (overseas) factory. So that element is a wash.

Packaging of shoes is almost identical (box, inner wrapper, stuffing to maintain shoe shape, etc)- the only difference is the international shoe would have the external plastic courier envelope versus the plastic bag the retailer gives it to you in.

Locally purchased shoes probably arrived in Australia in a shipping container, went to a distributor, then sat in retailer for a while. While the air freight courier delivery might sound high footprint, a brightly lit and attractive, but slow turnover retail display also has a high embedded environmental footprint as a distribution method. The just-in-time courier system may be more efficient than it seems at first glance.

I'm not seeing an compelling environmental reason to choose between the two. Make up your mind based on whether you feel that local support, warranty claims, consumer protection law, ease-of-return, GST going into the local economy is worth $50.

[perfectlydark]

Hmm not what I was thinking when I saw the title. I thought maybe commercial activities in "natural" environments would be more of an issue? Toughtoo, the money it brings helps preserve the site yet the same activities require the preservation to be more intense

[GPSGuided]

Go shoeless! It's easier on the environment and easier on the budget too!

[Swifty]

Go shoeless! It's easier on the environment and easier on the budget too!

Bingo!

[DarrenM]

A first world problem really….

I live in a minimum footprint autonomous house that i built myself, 50% of it is recycled materials, it has built in deconstruction potential so it can be reused/recycled at the end of it's long life, I grow a high percentage of my own food, I am revegetating my ex dairy farm, have no children by choice, avoid consumerism, repair, recycle, reuse as much as I can, ride my bike when ever it's practical, buy local to reduce my footprint, contribute time and money to Landcare etc etc etc and I still need 2.5 planets to live the way I live!!! Doing the best I can and being mindful of the environment I still have a massive impact, the problem is there are 7 billion people on a small planet all having an impact, all the big problems we face are symptoms of overpopulation. We are going down this path for the last time and where you buy your shoes ain't gonna make much difference sadly.

Steve

We could all take a leaf out of your book Steve. Great effort and the rewards are worth it on many levels. Thumbs up.

[GPSGuided]

Human is the greatest threat to the environment at this point in time in Earth's history.

[DannyS]

The question was a reflection of many choices I make, I too reflected on the vastness of the problem and wondered if there was any point in making an effort?
But if I throw my hands in the air and say one person can't make a difference then the race is definitely lost, everything adds up to something and all actions have an effect.

[DannyS]

Hmm not what I was thinking when I saw the title. I thought maybe commercial activities in "natural" environments would be more of an issue? Toughtoo, the money it brings helps preserve the site yet the same activities require the preservation to be more intense

perfectlydark I agree that those issues are large and impacting, but do you think that the choices of the individual are any less impacting?

[DannyS]

A first world problem really….

I live in a minimum footprint autonomous house that i built myself, 50% of it is recycled materials, it has built in deconstruction potential so it can be reused/recycled at the end of it's long life, I grow a high percentage of my own food, I am revegetating my ex dairy farm, have no children by choice, avoid consumerism, repair, recycle, reuse as much as I can, ride my bike when ever it's practical, buy local to reduce my footprint, contribute time and money to Landcare etc etc etc and I still need 2.5 planets to live the way I live!!! Doing the best I can and being mindful of the environment I still have a massive impact, the problem is there are 7 billion people on a small planet all having an impact, all the big problems we face are symptoms of overpopulation. We are going down this path for the last time and where you buy your shoes ain't gonna make much difference sadly.

Steve

Steve that's really impressive and encouraging, I agree that the purchase of shoes doesn't make much of a difference but we have to try. If you didn't believe that then why would you make the effort you make?

[GPSGuided]

Hard to know if direct mail order makes a difference from an environment angle. But I do know that tanking an economy would reduce consumer spending and material purchases. Mail order from overseas would certainly contributes to the tanking of one sector of our local economy. But of course, it'll depend on how you spend the spared $50 on your end.

[DannyS]

Hard to know if direct mail order makes a difference from an environment angle. But I do know that tanking an economy would reduce consumer spending and material purchases. Mail order from overseas would certainly contributes to the tanking of one sector of our local economy. But of course, it'll depend on how you spend the spared $50 on your end.

[perfectlydark]

absolutely Danny, we all play a part and I'll admit to going for cheap stuff without checking (or caring tbh) how or where it was made and what impact the production/distribution has had. I try to be energy and waste conscious personally, as when it comes to consumerism buying 'ethically' is not a luxury I can afford sadly

[GPSGuided]

Buying "ethically" is no guarantee on environmental improvement as some of the "ethical practices" are more about marketing than anything of material.

[perfectlydark]

That I also agree with. Im wary of any labels (be it "rainforest alliance", heart foundatiom tick etc) all they are is a certificatiom based on certain criteria, which anyone could comply to to qualify for a label. If I was in a positiom to be more environmentally concsious (in purchses) I would do my own research and not pay attention to that stuff

[SteveJ]

Steve that's really impressive and encouraging, I agree that the purchase of shoes doesn't make much of a difference but we have to try. If you didn't believe that then why would you make the effort you make?

I think years ago when I headed down the bumpy path of 'lifestyle change’ I believed that individuals could make a difference to the well being of the planet but I have lost that belief in recent years. Humans generally lack the ability to think beyond individual wants (as opposed to needs), our needs are very basic but for some reason we all want more than that. Humans don’t act collectively for the greater good, which is simply a survival instinct that ironically undermines our survival as a species. On an individual level, it cost me a lot of money and personal energy to build a true sustainable house and set up a self sustaining organic farm, it is a luxury and I am very very lucky to have the freedom of choice to do it, very few on the planet have such choice.

Steve

[LandSailor]

I think years ago when I headed down the bumpy path of 'lifestyle change’ I believed that individuals could make a difference to the well being of the planet but I have lost that belief in recent years. Humans generally lack the ability to think beyond individual wants (as opposed to needs), our needs are very basic but for some reason we all want more than that. Humans don’t act collectively for the greater good, which is simply a survival instinct that ironically undermines our survival as a species. On an individual level, it cost me a lot of money and personal energy to build a true sustainable house and set up a self sustaining organic farm, it is a luxury and I am very very lucky to have the freedom of choice to do it, very few on the planet have such choice.

Agree..I think we almost have to be on a war footing before anyway is prepared to make a significant change and by that time its probably too late. Really the only solution is R & D. We have to make green technology so cheap and effective that it is the preferred option purely because it is cheaper. That is only way we'll get the first world and the third world acting together on this. Till then we'll just get alot of dithering and empty rhetoric and tinkering around the edges. There was a good talk making this point at the National Press Club by a swedish scientist recently.

Only indirectly related but here's some interesting commentary on attaining great wealth by people who have experienced it.:-

Is getting rich worth it?

The conclusion seems to be its not nearly as good you'd think.

[DannyS]

Steve that's really impressive and encouraging, I agree that the purchase of shoes doesn't make much of a difference but we have to try. If you didn't believe that then why would you make the effort you make?

I think years ago when I headed down the bumpy path of 'lifestyle change’ I believed that individuals could make a difference to the well being of the planet but I have lost that belief in recent years. Humans generally lack the ability to think beyond individual wants (as opposed to needs), our needs are very basic but for some reason we all want more than that. Humans don’t act collectively for the greater good, which is simply a survival instinct that ironically undermines our survival as a species. On an individual level, it cost me a lot of money and personal energy to build a true sustainable house and set up a self sustaining organic farm, it is a luxury and I am very very lucky to have the freedom of choice to do it, very few on the planet have such choice.

Steve

Steve I'm not so naive as to believe that I can change the course we are traveling on(Steve that statement is directed at myself and not at you, just that there is no misunderstanding), I don't truly believe, sadly, that that can be achieved before, as Landsailor put it, We are on a war footing! I heard a very learned person say once that until we all suffer equally there will be no possibility of change, as long as the wealthy and powerful are in the drivers seat then we will follow the allotted course. Noam Chomsky speaks very clearly as to who holds the real power of decision making and control, if they are not suffering or seeing then there will be no real core level effort made.
But even faced with an unwinnable fight surely we still have to live by the truths we see and feel in our hearts! When you read a post like yours it's encouraging and uplifting, maybe that's the best that can be offered by yours and others efforts?
I think an effort should be made based on each persons capabilities and circumstances, if not for the environment then at the very least for our own empowerment. Knowing something and not acting upon it is like a cancer, it eats away at your character.

[SteveJ]

True, the reality is that we need to convince only 1 billion of the 7 billion people on earth to change their ways and we could have hope do what you can and enjoy the ride because it is pretty amazing regardless of where it's going

Steve

[DannyS]

True, the reality is that we need to convince only 1 billion of the 7 billion people on earth to change their ways and we could have hope do what you can and enjoy the ride because it is pretty amazing regardless of where it's going

Steve

Agreed

[perfectlydark]

well about 4 billion of those 7 are struggling enough to feed themselves so its more like 1 out of 3, and even most of them might not be in a position to do much about it.. just sayin

[GPSGuided]

well about 4 billion of those 7 are struggling enough to feed themselves so its more like 1 out of 3, and even most of them might not be in a position to do much about it.. just sayin

The real environmental pressure will come when developing countries are relieved of their poverty. Then more people will seek for the unsustainable materialistic living of the developed world and companies in developed countries will again seek out for markets and fuel a further wave of consumerism. Yes, there'd be more money to be made but gosh, hate to think of the environment angle.

[DannyS]

well about 4 billion of those 7 are struggling enough to feed themselves so its more like 1 out of 3, and even most of them might not be in a position to do much about it.. just sayin

The real environmental pressure will come when developing countries are relieved of their poverty. Then more people will seek for the unsustainable materialistic living of the developed world and companies in developed countries will again seek out for markets and fuel a further wave of consumerism. Yes, there'd be more money to be made but gosh, hate to think of the environment angle.

Yes, if you want to see a living expression of that GPSGuided just take a trip to India, it's consumerism and the Western ideal gone crazy!

[SteveJ]

The stats actually show that over 50% of energy resources are consumed by the developed world which only represents 1 billion of the 7 billion people on the planet, countries like India and China use a very small amount of energy resources per capita. 4% of Chinas energy is from renewables; the world average is less than 1%. Australia is one of the planets highest per capita consumers of resource, so one should be carful pointing fingers at the developing world and why are they not entitle to the same living standard as us??

This shows the per capita usage of energy, rather telling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

Steve

[SteveJ]

Heres another more current , that also shows trends over the last 20 years
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE

[GPSGuided]

The stats actually show that over 50% of energy resources are consumed by the developed world which only represents 1 billion of the 7 billion people on the planet, countries like India and China use a very small amount of energy resources per capita. 4% of Chinas energy is from renewables; the world average is less than 1%. Australia is one of the planets highest per capita consumers of resource, so one should be carful pointing fingers at the developing world and why are they not entitle to the same living standard as us??

That is correct. Amongst all the China bashing, they are actually one of the most active users of solar and other renewable technologies. I think that whilst India and China and many developing countries do look bad when compared at the country vs country level, but if the argument gets taken from a human equality point of view and use the population as the divisor, then developed countries would stand no ground in these arguments. I also understand this is where the conflict is at the various international climate negotiations. We in the developed countries have already used so much of existing resources on the planet, what right do we have in continuing to consume more at a disproportionate level? All comes down to selfishness.