The eco-social externalities of coal (part one)
It is quite common for the end-user of a commodity to have no idea where the good was actually produced, never mind how it got from point A to point B. But some consumers might prefer to get their vegetables them from a local farmers’ market, instead of the supermarket. A person might want to support a business because they have received exceptional service there in the past; or, because they know the signature dish is made with the freshest local ingredients. The global commodities market has separated the consumer and the producer across both time and space. Goods can be shipped all the way around the globe and many can be stored away for future use/sale. When consumers do not see where the good is produced, how it is produced, and the byproducts of that production, they are less likely to alter their own spending habits to align them with their own personal values. The global economy lives and dies at the level of uncertainty a consumer will accept before choosing to not buy a good. Coal may be less expensive in terms of how much you pay every month for electricity, but those bills do not accurately reflect all of the electricity’s costs, or what economists like to call, “externalities,” like sulfur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide, or even dead miners.
The globalized trade of products like gold, bananas, pork-bellies, sugar and wheat, to name a few, creates a market where consumers do not know where the good was actually grown, mined, plucked, or processed. Not only that, but it may not be so easy to buy something even though it is all around you (as my search for locally-grown soybeans proved). Why does this matter? It all boils down to consumer choice. On one hand, the modern globalized economy consists of consumers that are primarily concerned with getting a given commodity for the best price possible. On the other hand, some consumers may want more than whatever is cheapest.
There are some consumers who will want to weigh such variables as the ecological sustainability of a good and the process of manufacturing it; the human rights records in the country the good is produced; workplace health and safety records; environmental practices, or any of a number of monetary and non-monetary variables. Consumers who choose to shop with their conscience are faced with tough choices every day, and they usually go something like this: Pay more for a product because it is organically grown, or fair-trade certified and feel better about how your money affects the larger social, ecological and political climate, or, pay less for virtually the same product and spend the difference on something else you wanted. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: climate change, coal, politics

