I’m normally pro-European integration, and even vaguely (with obvious corruption-related reservations) pro-EU. However, the China clothes row makes me want to abandon all my pro-Europe tendencies and set fire to Peter Mandelson.
Imposing quotas on Chinese textiles makes it harder for Europeans (and disproportionately low-income Europeans, at that) to clothe themselves; it reduces the rate at which Chinese workers are lifted out of poverty; and it does little for European textiles workers either. The Chinese contractors will simply shift medium-term production to Laos, Cambodia, and other even-more-budget-than-China places, which I guess is a good thing in poverty-alleviation terms, but I’ve not yet seen anyone try to justify the quotas that way…
So what kind of an idiot, other than the kind of idiot who owned a Spanish textiles factory, could possibly support the quotas? (that was a rhetorical question, although this thread features an impressive array of such idiots.)
Since 1834, Europe ("The West") has been trying to get the Middle Kingdom to open it’s doors… Now that it finally has, Europe closes its own.
Then again, it is China that has the new "opiate of the masses" in the form of cheap consumer goods.
It is however hard to be pro-EU when stupid things like this occur, though I’m happy to set fire to Peter Mandelson anytime. :D
Obviously Mandelson is a regular reader of Hutton, and has noted the way they’re making great strides in China.
1) Wanting to set fire to Peter Mandelson is healthy.
2) There are legitimate reasons to block Chinese exports on environmental grounds (544 coal-fired power stations to be constructed in 20 years)… the Chinese environmental standards are a subsidy and China is a hugely inefficient energy user and producer…
3) the problem as you say is the race to the bottom where the Chinese merely subcontract
4) I know keeping people poor isn’t the answer but neither is destroying the planet… isn’t there a 3rd way?
1) It should be compulsory
2) Nearly as inefficient as the US then
3)The best answer to the RTTB is independent trade unions
4) Yes, it’s called Blairism/Clintonism/Liberalism and involves feeding people shit and telling them it’s fresh organic fruit. I think I’d prefer straightforward, red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalists in top hats feeding people shit and telling them it’s shit.
I don’t own a Spanish textiles factory. But I guess my objections to Chinese imports still make me an idiot.
Shipping t-shirts halfway round the world in the name of "cost savings" is just about the most absurdly unsustainable method for Europeans to clothe themselves that I can think of. See, idiots like me don’t believe that the money saved is "worth more" than the non-renewable resources consumed.
I guess us idiots need to stop giving a shit about food miles (or t-shirt miles) and simply kick back and rejoice at our "cheap" Chinese textiles. They may be costing our children the earth… but they’re only costing us three quid.
You are totally right about the third way HiOP… actually China uses about 20% more energy per equivalent unti of output than the US… its pretty grim… and they love coal
Blimey. But I suppose because we all want to put our hand up China’s skirt, metaphorically speaking, we’re ignoring inconvenient facts like that?
Jim – your point is the only sensible objection to Chinese imports, and hasn’t been made anything like enough by the ban’s proponents.
However, the coal the Chinese burn for industrial production is in China. It can only efficiently be used for China’s purposes, not by Italian factories. And I’m genuinely not sure how much energy it uses to ship a t-shirt to the UK, but container shipping is approximately the most fuel-efficient form of transport that there is. It wouldn’t surprise me overmuch if sending t-shirts by boat from China used less diesel than sending them by lorry from Italy (if anyone knows more about this, speak now – otherwise I might actually have to look it up…)
Jim :- "Shipping t-shirts halfway round the world in the name of "cost savings" is just about the most absurdly unsustainable method for Europeans to clothe themselves that I can think of."
Well, cotton doesn’t grow in Europe – yet. The choice is ship the cotton or ship the t-shirts.
The choice is ship the cotton or ship the t-shirts.
It’s really not you know. Not unless it’s your contention that Europeans were all naked prior to imported cotton. I am (of course) being a tad simplistic about this.
Nonetheless it is my firm belief that discrete geographical areas should all be self-sufficient with respect to essentials (food, clothing, etc) and that long-distance trade should be minimised as part of a wider policy of sustainability.
"Not unless it’s your contention that Europeans were all naked prior to imported cotton"
Before imported cotton it was about 300 BC for England, 2000 BC for Crete.
Badger-skin breech-clout sir? Suits you.
" it is my firm belief that discrete geographical areas should all be self-sufficient with respect to essentials (food, clothing, etc)"
Bugger that. Have I had my last cup of coffee? Eaten my last pineapple?
Badger-skin breech-clout sir?
Dave, I think you may have confused me with a luddite. I’m not suggesting a return to the neolithic. Though if I were, I’d probably consider linen or finely woven wool prior to animal fur. But feel free to get all Iron John if you want.
Bugger that. Have I had my last cup of coffee? Eaten my last pineapple?
Clearly not. And even though I watch food-miles like a hawk, I will continue to buy a couple of mangoes a week.
My point is merely that a globalised food supply system is an inherently bad way to organise things. I urge you (and anyone else reading this) to check out Colin Tudge’s eye-opening book And So Shall We Reap. It changed my mind on a number of important issues, and I’m sure everyone would agree that’s the best kind of book there is.
I’m not suggesting that we restrict tropical fruit and coffee to the tropics. As I said, I think you mistake me for a luddite, merely that we get our house in order. Globalised trade in foodstuffs (and clothing) has replaced local self-sufficiency rather than supplemented it (which any thinking person would surely agree must be the ideal) and that in turn has created a crisis waiting to happen.
I’m not a free-marketeer (by any stretch of the imagination) and – were I appointed God-Emperor of Earth tomorrow – I would, I’m sorry to say, directly link food costs to miles travelled (obviously this would have to be phased in to allow for sustainable self-suffiency to be relearnt and readopted).
Coffee and pineapples would get pretty damn scarce after a while. Once a sustainable system (or as close as we can get) is in place then the issue of global trade could be reassessed in the hope of finding a way of carrying it out that doesn’t compromise local food supply chains (I can’t envision it myself, but maybe it can be sorted).
The priority, however, would be to establish those local systems and maintain them in perpetuity. Basic biological necessity always trumps economic considerations on a planet where I’m God-Emperor.
Coffee and pineapples would get pretty damn scarce after a while.
Though I’d probably exempt mangoes. God-Emperors can be a capricious lot.
Isn’t actually Coffee a really great example of where things are really bad? As I understand it, thanks to tariffs, the vast majority of coffee is exported as coffee beans (often not even roasted?) Then, in a factory in Europe say, the beans are roasted, ground, and more often than not processed into the freeze-dried product that still (for some reason unrelated to taste, I can only assume) sells rather well.
Now, if this processing could be done where the coffee beans are grown, then it would give more money to producers. It would also involve shipping a much lighted product about the place, which is presumably more energy efficient.
The same goes for other foods. Yes, fresh fruit has to be flown in, basically. But how much of our food is processed? And why can’t this processing be done in the country where the food is grown, so that we only have ship the finished product about the place (often said product is then much longer lasting than the fresh product, so it could e.g. go by sea and not air).
Anyway, I think the moral is that we could save a vast amount of energy if we wanted to, without substantially changing the availability or cost of what we eat. Of course, we would probably have to accept lower profits for Nestle etc.
no, it makes sense to grind coffee beans as late as possible in the process because when you grind them you massively increase the surface area and oxidation takes place much faster. Also it uses less energy to /freeze/-dry things in Hamburg than in Kenya. (This is also the reason that Ghana doesn’t integrate up the value chain in its production of cocoa; chocolate melts).
no, it makes sense to grind coffee beans as late as possible in the process because when you grind them you massively increase the surface area and oxidation takes place much faster.
Er, what? Most people buy their ground coffee in little vacuum sealed plastic bags: why can’t this be done where they are grown? I will concede that the beans I buy should perhaps be roasted in the shop I get them from…
Also it uses less energy to /freeze/-dry things in Hamburg than in Kenya.
Any hard figures to back this up? It sounds like pure conjecture: perhaps 10 degrees in temperate difference is not going to make that much difference in *freezing* something… Ah, Wiki is my friend. So that’s a high vacuum and -50C, which makes me think that it would be highly efficient in orbit, but that moving from Kenya to Hamburg will make little difference…
Before we get into a silly argument, I haven’t, of course, done an energy analysis of coffee production. However, my argument at least seems plausible…