Even with your love for turtles you shouldn't think too much about plastic in the UK, unless you're taking your bags the coast and throwing them in. Plastic in the ocean overwhelmingly comes from boats, the Philippines and to a lesser extent the other nations in South East Asia https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/visualized-ocean-plastic-waste-pollution-by-country/ . Western nations are very good at not putting their plastic in the ocean (at least since we stopped shipping it to South East Asia for 'recycling').
I never expected Fair Trade to outperform countries sorting out their own corruption/governance, but I couldn't do that for them. I thought Fair Trade was likely to outperform direct cash transfers, since it also incentivised productivity. GiveWell don't seem to have evaluated Fair Trade beyond the odd sneer that seems more predicated on 'something not invented here' than 'we ran any kind of analysis'. My own impression is that following the Great Recession from 2008 the Fair Trade premium became unacceptable to so many consumers, that Fair Trade no longer had enough customers to stay stocked in the supermarkets, which is a real shame. I still wonder whether it would have made it if it hadn't been for the 10% charity on top bit. I still like the idea of buying chocolate without slavery being involved, and creating some price stability for smaller farmers (though obviously you can't push this far without breaking from all the benefits of the market).
I think global warming depends on how much carbon we put into the atmosphere before we get to net zero (zero is not the same as minus infinity!), in which case eating less meat could be relevant.
Agree with you on the others, and the heuristic.
"You’ll be almost certainly be better off for it" has more words in it than you intended.
(other than all those little ‘GM-free’ labels they went about printing for a few year) -> years
"But we’ve got a letter better at regulating these since the ‘70s" might be an allusion I'm not getting, but I suspect letter -> lot
(lead and mercury are ‘organic’, for example) - I don't think lead or mercury are used in organic farming, nor does Susie. Arsenic and Nicotine are used (used safely mind you - today regulation is tight and farmers are really good at applying chemicals safely).
I don't know what's wrong with the sentence "in the rare occasions you actually something that will make a difference it will be taxed or regulated before long." but something is.
Love the footnotes, especially the Boa Constrictor, and your conclusion!
I'm pleased to know we've stopped shipping our plastic to SE Asia!
Thanks for the correction on lead and mercury. I think I am correct in saying that lead *could* be classed as organic if it could be used safely (as it's naturally occurring) - it's presumably not because it can't be used safely/usefully - but agree it's much clearer to use examples that actually *are* used to make the point that the natural/unnatural distinction is pointless.
As I said, I do think Fairtrade is perhaps the least weak food fad as it did do some good. It's an interesting point about whether a label which only focused on ethical treatment of workers not all the charity stuff on top. That would also avoid the risk of 'trapping' workers into an unproductive industry/reducing incentives to increase productivity.
You are right that (in most scenarios) the total integral of carbon under the curve is what matters. But my hunch is that actions which impact cost curves >> actions which don't. I think (well, I know) that you care a lot more than me about whether it's 2045 or 2055.
I think you're right that the only thing stopping lead being used in organic farming is that it kills humans faster than pests. I think their definition of 'naturally occuring' is something like 'if we used it before 1800, it's all good'.
I agree with you on the cost curves point, but it's fair to say that
actions which impact cost curves + actions which reduce current emmisisons > just cost curves >> just current emmissions
So reducing meat isn't pointless the way avoiding GM is.
Yes - it's fair to draw a distinction between fads that are completely pointless and those that are just much less important than they're made out to be.
Even with your love for turtles you shouldn't think too much about plastic in the UK, unless you're taking your bags the coast and throwing them in. Plastic in the ocean overwhelmingly comes from boats, the Philippines and to a lesser extent the other nations in South East Asia https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/visualized-ocean-plastic-waste-pollution-by-country/ . Western nations are very good at not putting their plastic in the ocean (at least since we stopped shipping it to South East Asia for 'recycling').
I never expected Fair Trade to outperform countries sorting out their own corruption/governance, but I couldn't do that for them. I thought Fair Trade was likely to outperform direct cash transfers, since it also incentivised productivity. GiveWell don't seem to have evaluated Fair Trade beyond the odd sneer that seems more predicated on 'something not invented here' than 'we ran any kind of analysis'. My own impression is that following the Great Recession from 2008 the Fair Trade premium became unacceptable to so many consumers, that Fair Trade no longer had enough customers to stay stocked in the supermarkets, which is a real shame. I still wonder whether it would have made it if it hadn't been for the 10% charity on top bit. I still like the idea of buying chocolate without slavery being involved, and creating some price stability for smaller farmers (though obviously you can't push this far without breaking from all the benefits of the market).
I think global warming depends on how much carbon we put into the atmosphere before we get to net zero (zero is not the same as minus infinity!), in which case eating less meat could be relevant.
Agree with you on the others, and the heuristic.
"You’ll be almost certainly be better off for it" has more words in it than you intended.
(other than all those little ‘GM-free’ labels they went about printing for a few year) -> years
"But we’ve got a letter better at regulating these since the ‘70s" might be an allusion I'm not getting, but I suspect letter -> lot
(lead and mercury are ‘organic’, for example) - I don't think lead or mercury are used in organic farming, nor does Susie. Arsenic and Nicotine are used (used safely mind you - today regulation is tight and farmers are really good at applying chemicals safely).
I don't know what's wrong with the sentence "in the rare occasions you actually something that will make a difference it will be taxed or regulated before long." but something is.
Love the footnotes, especially the Boa Constrictor, and your conclusion!
I'm pleased to know we've stopped shipping our plastic to SE Asia!
Thanks for the correction on lead and mercury. I think I am correct in saying that lead *could* be classed as organic if it could be used safely (as it's naturally occurring) - it's presumably not because it can't be used safely/usefully - but agree it's much clearer to use examples that actually *are* used to make the point that the natural/unnatural distinction is pointless.
As I said, I do think Fairtrade is perhaps the least weak food fad as it did do some good. It's an interesting point about whether a label which only focused on ethical treatment of workers not all the charity stuff on top. That would also avoid the risk of 'trapping' workers into an unproductive industry/reducing incentives to increase productivity.
You are right that (in most scenarios) the total integral of carbon under the curve is what matters. But my hunch is that actions which impact cost curves >> actions which don't. I think (well, I know) that you care a lot more than me about whether it's 2045 or 2055.
Pleased you agree with the conclusion!
I think you're right that the only thing stopping lead being used in organic farming is that it kills humans faster than pests. I think their definition of 'naturally occuring' is something like 'if we used it before 1800, it's all good'.
I agree with you on the cost curves point, but it's fair to say that
actions which impact cost curves + actions which reduce current emmisisons > just cost curves >> just current emmissions
So reducing meat isn't pointless the way avoiding GM is.
Yes - it's fair to draw a distinction between fads that are completely pointless and those that are just much less important than they're made out to be.