1) We pay a bigger electric bill when we're wasteful.
2) Then, we pay higher taxes because we're buying more power from the Americans and selling us.
3) Then, we're paying higher taxes and other costs again for environmental damage of more American coal plants working, instead of relying on the relatively clean hydro.

It just seems wrong.

Will most Canadians pay a few extra cents for a product by a company that is environmentally responsible, pays fair wages, doesn't test on animals etc. Sure.

Will most Canadians invest hours to research which products are OK to purchase and which aren't? No.

The fact of the matter is that Canadians are terriblly uninformed of the actions of many of the companies - with the exception of the usual targets - ie WalMart, Nike and Mcdonalds.

Canada fought tooth and nail to ensure that GMO foods did not have to be labelled such that we have no idea whether our foods are genetically modified or not. The onus is on the customer to find out, and for the responsible companies to make us aware of what they are doing - rather than the other way around.

To start, a general campaign calling for 10% less consumption...of everything.

Electricity is one example, but so to could use of your car be another or how about getting a few more days out of your guitar strings?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
...Socially minded folk need to collaborate more around influencing the market.

To start, a general campaign calling for 10% less consumption...of everything.

---

ward, while i appreciate and agree with the angle you are suggesting here, there is one problem, namely "the market". The Market, or "free-market" inherently requires profit. this is actually codified into a non-negotiable requirement by fiduciary duty. As in a company cannot be socially or environmentally responsible if that means it makes less money than if it is not.

But what will happen when we run out of resources? Could it spell the end of the capitalist system, or at least huge changes to the current incarnation? Almost certainly we would see an end to the walmart economic model, as due to scarcity the cost of all that cheap plastic crap would be out of the range of most people. It would probably become a status symbol to have all that junk, and places that sold it would start to look more like a boutique. The masses would be in the situation of having to 'use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without'.

quote:

---

But what will happen when we run out of resources? Could it spell the end of the capitalist system, or at least huge changes to the current incarnation?

---

whoa! check this out. I noticed it just now on bbc.com and it essentially is the absolute reverse of otter's suggestion to consume less, and acutally ponders solutions to the problem of how workers of outsourced industries can still consume in absence of a job!

quote:

---

But even for European workers priced out of traditional manufacturing jobs there is a silver lining.

They have unprecedented access as consumers to cheap global products they could not possibly afford under a restrictive, protectionist trade regime.

---

you have now entered the twighlight zone....

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]

If you restrict the inflow of goods, you keep jobs and capital in your region. If you restrict the outflow of capital, you keep jobs and workers in your region. If you restrict the outflow of workers but let capital and goods flow freely, then you will wind up with no manufacturing base, no capital or jobs, and a steady supply of cheap plastic crap flowing into your local walmart.

The higher paid, more likely to be Unionized with benefits jobs in the manufacturing sector will fly the coop to someplace with few regulations (regulations like health and safety, environmental, worker protection cost money, remember) be replaced with low paying, part time, little or no benefits service sector jobs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
Toronto Hydro'srebate incentive got me thinking. Can socialists adopt/adapt the supply and demand market concept? After all, the masses may never and perhaps, should never be expected to behave in some perfect socially altruistic manner.

---

Oh, that totally pisses me off.

So, for those people who are already not being energy hogs, they get no benefit. People who are being energy hogs, but reduce their consumption to a level that is still way higher than those who have been conserving energy all along? Why, they get a reward!

I personally think that if you want to go the market-based route to conservation, you do it this way:

The first x amount of energy is priced at a much lower price. The next marginal amount of energy is priced at a higher price. The next marginal amount is priced even higher, and so on.

Either that, or I think it should be so that if you use under X amount, you get X price per unit. If you use between X (lowest) and Y (next lowest) amount, you pay Y price for all of it. If you use between Y (second lowest) and Z (third lowest) amount, you pay Z prince for all of it.

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

So, for those people who are already not being energy hogs, they get no benefit. People who are being energy hogs, but reduce their consumption to a level that is still way higher than those who have been conserving energy all along? Why, they get a reward!

---

[edit (typo..(ok spelling))]

[ 12 August 2006: Message edited by: Ward ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by slimpikins:
...If anyone can explain how an economy can thrive when it consists mainly of people cutting each others hair and flipping each others burgers without any resource or manufacturing industry, I would love to hear it.

---

well, that's why that article had me slack jawed! you've said it perfectly above slimpikins. the most amazing part of all this is that the people who are running the world (and local) economies actually believe that you can do this. they have faith that it is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
As long as someone, somewhere is producing what you want, and is willing to trade it for what you produce, then there's no problem. There's no reason for any country to be self-sufficient in everything, any more than any household has to be self-sufficient.

---

But importing what we don't make and exporting all we do make puts extra emphasis on physical transportation of goods ie. rail lines, trucking, shipping etc. Accelerated free trade sounds like a great idea, but why make ourselves dependent on other countries and create vulnerabilities within our own economy with unprecedented foreign ownership of our raw materials and means of production?. This part of globalism I don't understand. And Canada seems to have increased foreign ownership of crown corporations and sold-off control of our raw materials like no other developed country. What is the advantage to this, and why does it appear to be no more to our advantage than colonialism was to India and other colonies?.

And what about increased pollution associated with various means of physical transportation in a time when we need to conserve ?. I agree in general with the idea of trading freely with other nations, but I think we're back to worshipping invisible hands again when free traders call for unbridled, regulation-free trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
As long as someone, somewhere is producing what you want, and is willing to trade it for what you produce, then there's no problem. There's no reason for any country to be self-sufficient in everything, any more than any household has to be self-sufficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:

It's a problem politically if the only countries making what you want are countries that you would prefer not to deal with. (For political reasons, or ethical reasons, or practical reasons.)

---