Say we have two families, A and B, who both manufacture widgets. Family A lives in North America, while family B lives in China. Both A and B consist of a husband, wife, and two kids, but family A has much higher expenses because:

• Family A has a detached 3 bedroom home with heating, water, and electricity. Family B only has a small apartment in a large complex; but it fulfills their needs
• Family A has two cars to travel from their suburb to work, the grocery store, etc. Family B uses only bicycles and public transportation to get around in the dense city where they live.
• Family A pays taxes to maintain local infrastructure like roads, community centers, schools, scholarships, etc. Family B still pays taxes, but they are lower since their government doesn’t provide as much support for the community

There are many other differences, but I think you get the idea: the cost of living in North America is much higher. The reasons for our higher costs vary from our cities’ designs to our mandated education, but the reasons aren’t really the point. The point is that North American labour is expensive because North American life is inefficient. We simply cannot compete against the lean lifestyles of Asia.

In the long run, I think we’ll be forced to downsize our lifestyles to stay competitive in a global economy. It’s analogous to a large company restructuring its operations to stay competitive in changing market conditions. Ultimately, I think it will be a good change; but it won’t be easy.

As an interesting coincidence, I was browsing Amazon yesterday and added one of Jared’s most famous books, Guns, Germs and Steel, to my wishlist. I hadn’t heard of him before, but now he’s popped up twice in two days.

I read an interesting article in Time today. Apparently hunters in Sweden have been hired to quell a rabbit infestation that threatens to damage the local ecosystem. However, the European Union has a law against disposing of raw meat in landfills, so alternative methods had to be found for disposing of the carcasses. The solution: incinerate the carcasses along with woodchips and other burnable materials, and use the resulting heat to generate power for the grid.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who are outraged by this, but I’m not one of them. I figure they are killing the bunnies to protect the ecosystem from an invasive species, and they are generating energy as a side-effect. I’m okay with that.

But what if the motivations were different, and we were actually farming bunnies to power our electrical grid? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be okay with that. It sounds immoral, cruel, and I would hope that by the 21st century we would have found a better way to power our lights.

I decided to write about this issue because I realized that my views on burning bunnies are very similar to my views on eating meat: it just seems cruel and unnecessary. So I’m curious – what are your views on burning bunnies, and how do they differ from your views on eating meat?

• Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy.
• Throughout history, global economic activity has been directly proportional to global energy use – so conserving energy causes economic recession.

I think Professor Garrett’s research is essentially saying that we have four options: we can do nothing, we can switch to clean energy, we can conserve energy, or we can be more efficient with our energy. By his calculations, doing nothing will cause catastrophic climate change; switching to clean energy cannot be done fast enough; trying to conserve energy will cause economic collapse; and improving efficiency will cause economic growth and increased energy use (which is worse than doing nothing!).

I’m willing to trust that Professor Garrett got his facts and his numbers right, but his conclusions rely on the assumption that improving energy efficiency increases energy use, called Jevon’s paradox. However, Jevon’s paradox only applies when people want to consume more but cannot afford to; not when they are trying to conserve. So, if our society is simultaneously focused on shifting to clean energy, improving our energy efficiency, and shifting our culture toward conservation, then I think we can continue to thrive.

According to an economist, company A is a better company because it’s producing the same product for cheaper. However, to an engineer, company A is being ridiculously inefficient. Company A is accomplishing the same thing as company B, but a lot of extra work must be done in company A’s supply chain, including:

• Extract the oil from the Earth
• Ship the oil to the refinery, and refine it into gasoline
• Ship the gasoline to the harbour
• Build a shipping fleet
• Operate and maintain the shipping fleet in both directions (full one way, empty the other)

Overall, company A is spending less money to build each widget, but they’re consuming more man-power and more natural resources.

So who is right; the economist or the engineer? Which company is better?

To me, the question of whether to shop at Walmart can be rephrased to this:

Should we reward companies for the positive changes they are making now, or should we punish them for their past deeds?

I think that corporations learn the same way that people do, so we should treat corporations the same way that good parents treat their children: we should punish them justly, reward them swiftly, and never hold a grudge. While it may feel justified to hold a grudge, it can impede the positive change that drives social progress. Acting like a good parent gives them immediate feedback and encourages positive changes in their behaviour.

To help you decide for yourself, I’ve summarized some of Walmart’s criticisms and current initiatives with information from here and here. To be clear, I am not saying that you should shop at Walmart; I am simply arguing that if you want to foster change then you should judge corporations (and people!) based on their present actions and not their past (provided their past isn’t too gruesome!).

Criticisms:

• As a large company, they drive local “mom and pop” stores out of business with lower prices through economies of scale and loss-leaders.
• They are very profitable but they pay most employees near-minimum wages while paying executives very high salaries
• They have poor working conditions and offer poor health care for many employees
• They use their influence to put pressure on their suppliers, causing the suppression of wages throughout the economy

Recent initiatives:

• They have committed $500 million per year to environmental initiatives such as:
  • Double the fuel efficiency of their shipping fleet within 10 years
  • Reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 7 years
  • Reduce their energy use by 30% and solid waste by 25% in 3 years
• They designed and built three experimental “green” stores
• They’ve set a goal of being a “good steward for the environment” with an ultimate goal of using only renewable energy and producing zero waste.
• They announced profit-sharing initiatives, 401k contributions, and stock purchasing program contributions for their employees
• They’ve announced plans to develop a worldwide sustainable product index, which would provide transparency for socially-conscious consumers — similar to how nutrition labels have brought transparency for health-conscious consumers.

WordPress won’t let me embed the video – so you’ll have to check it out here

That philosophy doesn’t sit well with me. Buddhism teaches that to be truly happy you must let go of your selfishness, your fortune (food, clothing, relationships), and your ambitions. However, my ambition is to make other people happier, so it seems selfish to drop that ambition to pursue my own happiness. So I’ve reached a paradox where I can never be happy because I am either selfishly pursuing enlightenment or foolishly seeking happiness in the wrong places.

What I want to believe is that happiness comes from love and from making other people happy. That would mean that everyone’s pursuit of happiness would make other people happy, and everyone that makes other people happy will be rewarded with happiness. I don’t fully believe that it’s true, but I want to believe it because that’s the kind of world that I want to live in.

To be fair, Buddhism resonates with me more than any other religion; but it’s the philosophies that resonate, not the religious parts nor the extremist approach to happiness.

Cooperatives or sweatshops
When you buy from a sweatshop you’re voting for poverty; when you buy from a cooperative you’re voting for fair wages. Fair wages allow workers and their families to improve their living conditions, and can help develop a local economy in their often impoverished communities. In contrast, low wages maintain the workers’ poverty and contribute to the ever-widening income gap.

Sustainable or destructive
When you buy goods that weren’t sustainably produced, you’re telling the market that you don’t care about the consequences of your purchases. With the understanding that our ecosystem fuels our economy, it doesn’t seem wise to destroy it. Sustainably produced goods are a little more expensive, but buying them is the only way to tell the market what your values are.

Healthy or harmful
If the food you eat isn’t healthy then it’s harmful. By purchasing harmful foods you are telling the market that you don’t care about your health. As a result, companies focus on sweet and salty snacks instead of healthy ones. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t value their health, but aligning our decisions with our values is never easy.

Making every-day decisions that align with our personal values is hard; partly due to temptation and partly due to a shortage of information. I doubt the temptation will ever go away, but maybe someday soon the info we need will be at our fingertips.

Coming off a cold and a minor neck injury, I couldn’t agree more.