Re: [C-L] Walking Lightly | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Stuart Joseph (stuartcaercoburn.org) | |
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT) |
We also need to go back to an earlier time before our throwaway society. Use it until you wear it out. Lisa Poley wrote:
Brian - I am afraid that you misunderstood my point.Minimizing labor input per unit of production does not necessarily correlate to tangible benefits for the environment. It makes no sense to lump labor use, particularly highly-skilled labor use, in with material resourceconsumption in the way that you suggest.Not all resource use is the same in terms of environmental impact. We WANT to create more opportunities for labor use, particularly highly skilled labor use (because presumably that translates into more job opportunities, income, increased self-sufficiency etc.) plus labor is arenewable resource.Non-renewable natural resource use is an entirely different story. The over-use of polluting, non-renewable resources has serious environmentalconsequences.We need to be moving toward creation of economic systems that rely less on flagrant consumption of non-renewable resources and more on goods and services that use skill and innovation to maximize value and quality from increasingly limited material resource inputs. That means shifting labor/skill/innovation inputs UP and material inputs DOWN. That is much more sustainable in the long term from both an ecological and a socialstandpoint. Best,Lisa -----Original Message-----From: Brian Bartholomew [mailto:bb [at] stat.ufl.edu] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:19 AMTo: Cohousing-L Subject: Re: [C-L]_ 50+ and affordable "Lisa Poley" <lpoley [at] vt.edu> writes: > more commonly higher prices are seen with new technologies and > innovations that have not yet been able to take advantage of the > cost savings that come from scaled up production. Right! Less economy of scale means more resources consumed to build each unit. > The higher 'resource' costs usually reflects higher priced labor > inputs and initial R&D and capital outlays Right! High-skill labor took a lot of resources (universities etc.) to produce. Non-reoccuring engineering costs lots of resources. Capital is or proxies for natural resources. The resource costs of initial R&D and factory construction are just as physically real as the costs of production after the product is designed. If a product can't pay back its initial design investment via income from sales, it is a net resource loss. ----- Social justice is an entirely separate topic from counting resource use. Slavery is an evil crime; the victims should be freed and the slavemasters punished. That said, I do not think Wal-Mart suppliers kill workers if they try to resign their jobs. If these jobs are uniformly so horrible, why would people take them?Purchase of cheap goods imported from far away has significantly negative environmental impacts that are not well accounted for in the final price of the good because we don't currently internalize costs of the environment of CO2 emissions from transportation into the price of the goods we purchase.The true resource cost of ocean shipping may be close to negligible relative to the value of what's shipped: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.10/ports.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set= Today, transport costs account for about 1 percent of the final price of consumer goods, making country of origin largely an afterthought in purchasing decisions. True, that 1% doesn't count air pollution. But it's a big ocean and there may not be that much air pollution. How many harbors have a smog problem? Brian _________________________________________________________________Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date: 7/1/200712:19 PMNo virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date: 7/1/200712:19 PM_________________________________________________________________Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
-- Stuart Joseph, 802-463-1954 Project Director Caer Coburn, a traditional village based upon cohousing and intentional communities in Rockingham, Vermont, USA http://www.caercoburn.org Mail to: 36 Front St. Bellows Falls, VT 05101 USA
- Re: 50+ and affordable, (continued)
-
Re: 50+ and affordable Brian Bartholomew, June 30 2007
- Re: 50+ and affordable Lisa Poley, July 1 2007
- Re: 50+ and affordable Brian Bartholomew, July 2 2007
- Re: [C-L] Walking Lightly Lisa Poley, July 2 2007
- Re: [C-L] Walking Lightly Stuart Joseph, July 3 2007
- Re: [C-L] Walking Lightly Kerry Strayton, July 3 2007
-
Re: 50+ and affordable Brian Bartholomew, June 30 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.