About a week ago, my class did a random economic project, not in the sense that we had no idea what was going on, (although for some people that might have been the case), just that we were assigned various personalities to become. I was chosen to be the scenario of the white median, married with two children under five years of age. This meant that my spouse and I made $71 thousand a year, which was over $4,000 a month after taxes. Our task for the project was to complete one month's budget with our given scenario.
At first I was expecting some difficulties, for I knew that in today's economy it can be hard to make ends meet even for families in the middle class. But I was actually pleasantly surprised. After all of my expenses, (and I did have more than I expected) I had over $1,000 to play around with. This money I would have probably put into my savings, but it was money that could go anywhere in my budget. I did have some luxuries that others did not, for example, I said that my children's grandmother would be responsible for them, which meant I did not have to pay for day care, and I also did not have to make car payments. Looking at these luxuries I was able to understand more fully how supply and demand works. If consumers wish to purchase something, technically they should be able to control the price. For example, when choosing the type of clothing you would like to wear you have many choices, some more expensive than others. If every consumer chose to wear inexpensive clothing, than designer labels would be forced to make their products cost less. Unfortunately this system does not work for all of us across the board, which is why we have different levels of competition. For those of us who can afford Burberry, than there are many different high end shops to chooses from, and this will continue to be true, whatever level shopper you may be. For now this system seems to be working, and as long as there is a list of healthy competitors, I believe that the system will continue to work.
There were many things about this project which surprised me. When you live at home, it is so hard to comprehend how much support your parents give you. When I look at my budget for one month, it's the little things that seem to add up. Items like shampoo, or when you want to go out to the movies, or even owning a pet which are just simple little things, but they can really ring up your monthly budget. When I had to pretend to be the responsible adult parent, it was much harder to say what I needed, rather than what I wanted. I was fortunate enough to make enough money to not have to really distinguish that point, but for others in my class it was a very hard decision.
The average family income, for the traditional nuclear family is about $79,966* per year. What I found interesting is that while I was close to making that amount of money per year as the White median, the Hispanic median, and Black median were not close at all. It is still astonishing to me that we are still so segregated at this point in time. In 2005, there were about 2 million people receiving welfare**. This information intrigued me, because the number was so large, but it made me think of something we had discussed in class. When we looked at the income of a person on minimum wage, and the amount of money one could receive on Welfare, the amounts were only off by about $5,000, without tax deductions. I guess that some people might look at what they could potentially make, and what they would receive on welfare, and say that welfare was just easier to manage. There are some benefits, up to a point, for example you don't need for daycare for your children, and you also aren't required to pay taxes. Looking at it from that angle, I could understand choosing to just go on welfare, but to me that option is just a pit, with no way out.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Random Economics
About a week ago, my class did a random economic project, not in the sense that we had no idea what was going on, (although for some people that might have been the case), just that we were assigned various personalities to become. I was chosen to be the scenario of the white median, married with two children under five years of age. This meant that my spouse and I made $71 thousand a year, which was over $4,000 a month after taxes. Our task for the project was to complete one month's budget with our given scenario.
At first I was expecting some difficulties, for I knew that in today's economy it can be hard to make ends meet even for families in the middle class. But I was actually pleasantly surprised. After all of my expenses, (and I did have more than I expected) I had over $1,000 to play around with. This money I would have probably put into my savings, but it was money that could go anywhere in my budget. I did have some luxuries that others did not, for example, I said that my children's grandmother would be responsible for them, which meant I did not have to pay for day care, and I also did not have to make car payments.
There were many things about this project which surprised me. When you live at home, it is so hard to comprehend how much support your parents give you. When I look at my budget for one month, it's the little things that seem to add up. Items like shampoo, or when you want to go out to the movies, or even owning a pet which are just simple little things, but they can really ring up your monthly budget. When I had to pretend to be the responsible adult parent, it was much harder to say what I needed, rather than what I wanted. I was fortunate enough to make enough money to not have to really distinguish that point, but for others in my class it was a very hard decision.
The average family income, for the traditional nuclear family is about $79,966* per year. What I found interesting is that while I was close to making that amount of money per year as the White median, the Hispanic median, and Black median were not close at all. It is still astonishing to me that we are still so segregated at this point in time.
In 2005, there were about 2 million people receiving welfare**. This information intrigued me, because the number was so large, but it made me think of something we had discussed in class. When we looked at the income of a person on minimum wage, and the amount of money one could receive on Welfare, the amounts were only off by about $5,000, without tax deductions. I guess that some people might look at what they could potenially make, and what they would recieve on welfare, and say that welfare was just easier to manage. There are some benefits, up to a point, for example you don't need for daycare for your children, and you also aren't required to pay taxes. Looking at it from that angle, I could understand choosing to just go on welfare, but to me that option is just a pit, with no way out.
*http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/statemedfaminc.html
**http://www.govspot.com/know/welfare.htm
At first I was expecting some difficulties, for I knew that in today's economy it can be hard to make ends meet even for families in the middle class. But I was actually pleasantly surprised. After all of my expenses, (and I did have more than I expected) I had over $1,000 to play around with. This money I would have probably put into my savings, but it was money that could go anywhere in my budget. I did have some luxuries that others did not, for example, I said that my children's grandmother would be responsible for them, which meant I did not have to pay for day care, and I also did not have to make car payments.
There were many things about this project which surprised me. When you live at home, it is so hard to comprehend how much support your parents give you. When I look at my budget for one month, it's the little things that seem to add up. Items like shampoo, or when you want to go out to the movies, or even owning a pet which are just simple little things, but they can really ring up your monthly budget. When I had to pretend to be the responsible adult parent, it was much harder to say what I needed, rather than what I wanted. I was fortunate enough to make enough money to not have to really distinguish that point, but for others in my class it was a very hard decision.
The average family income, for the traditional nuclear family is about $79,966* per year. What I found interesting is that while I was close to making that amount of money per year as the White median, the Hispanic median, and Black median were not close at all. It is still astonishing to me that we are still so segregated at this point in time.
In 2005, there were about 2 million people receiving welfare**. This information intrigued me, because the number was so large, but it made me think of something we had discussed in class. When we looked at the income of a person on minimum wage, and the amount of money one could receive on Welfare, the amounts were only off by about $5,000, without tax deductions. I guess that some people might look at what they could potenially make, and what they would recieve on welfare, and say that welfare was just easier to manage. There are some benefits, up to a point, for example you don't need for daycare for your children, and you also aren't required to pay taxes. Looking at it from that angle, I could understand choosing to just go on welfare, but to me that option is just a pit, with no way out.
*http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/statemedfaminc.html
**http://www.govspot.com/know/welfare.htm
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Political Parties (Take Two)
The best party for the United Sates is the Republican party. If we had only one choice, the Republican Party would be best suited to our needs. The party was created in 1854* in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and has continued to be the second largest affiliated party, presently. The platform of the Republicans was centered around big business, the gold standard, high tariffs, and large pensions for veterans*. Today the party focuses on beliefs such as federalism, laissez fair, and fiscal conservatism*. These policies would help to improve our country. If our government put more faith into gold, we would not have the inflation we have today. Hard currency can not just be printed whenever the need is present. Less inflation would also support our finances overseas, because the dollar would be stronger. Republicans believe that the states should have more power than the federal government. Individual states have a better sense of what their state needs, rather than the federal government making one, big, sweeping motion. For example, a snow emergency law makes perfect sense in New York, but is not plausible in Hawaii. This might stimulate the economy, because if states “competed” against one another, each would want to be the best and have the best for their citizens. This would also provide the people with great opportunities because when businesses compete, the people will win. Fiscal conservatism* would reduce spending, providing the government with a way to become debt free. This would also raise our credibility with other nations, because they would be able to see that the US could manage their funds, and would therefore be well equipped to handle other funds.
The downside of having one party, is the lack of new ideas. It could be hard to break out of a rut, which could cause the country to sag lower and lower. The Republican Party has many good ideas, but on the other hand, some may not be plausible. Social conservatism* would not be good for our society. It would benefit us while restricting drugs, or other illegal negotiations, but could hinder some of our rights. People would not take kindly to this belief if they lost some of the freedoms, they thought non removable. High tariffs might also be frowned upon, in this time of economic recession. Businesses are running a tight ship, tying to save as much money as possible, and a high tariff would not factor well into that plan. Other countries could choose to trade with nations other than the United States, to avoid the high tariffs as well. These problems may seem big, but could be solved, as our government looked at what was best for the people. Having the Republican Party as the only party, would ensure that people could agree, and make decisions quickly.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
http://www.gop.com/about/
The downside of having one party, is the lack of new ideas. It could be hard to break out of a rut, which could cause the country to sag lower and lower. The Republican Party has many good ideas, but on the other hand, some may not be plausible. Social conservatism* would not be good for our society. It would benefit us while restricting drugs, or other illegal negotiations, but could hinder some of our rights. People would not take kindly to this belief if they lost some of the freedoms, they thought non removable. High tariffs might also be frowned upon, in this time of economic recession. Businesses are running a tight ship, tying to save as much money as possible, and a high tariff would not factor well into that plan. Other countries could choose to trade with nations other than the United States, to avoid the high tariffs as well. These problems may seem big, but could be solved, as our government looked at what was best for the people. Having the Republican Party as the only party, would ensure that people could agree, and make decisions quickly.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
http://www.gop.com/about/
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Freedom of Speech in China
In the United States it is easy to put your opinion out into the world. Everyday blogs are posted, editorials written, and other such reading materials concerning any matter the we deem important. It is astonishing how open we can be about our government, and it is surprising how many other countries, are unaware of our rights. When we had two speakers from China speak to us, they mentioned how they believed their country allows some free speech. When they were comparing it to the amount we had, they really did not understand. According to our speakers, we could print some ideas in our papers, but Americans still had some conditions of moderation. When we explained to them that this was not the case, we can actually say anything -providing it’s not slanderous- about anyone, even the president himself, the speakers were incredulous. I find it amazing myself how little the speakers knew about our freedom of speech, and they had been here for about four years! I guess they were blinded by the same blindness we have about China, neither country really knows about the other. As Westerners we have this perception that Chinese citizens cannot even step out of their front door without being watched, but apparently they have more freedom than we give them credit for. According to Rana Mitter, “Tian'anmen Square now shapes popular understanding of the Chinese Government in the West.”* Americans have not seen the evolution that has apparently taken place in China, where it is now okay for people to publish their own opinions. Our speakers said that they believed that they had freedom of speech in their home country, just not to the extent that we have here. Although they claimed to have some freedom of speech, the speakers did say that one editor was fired for printing an article that spoke poorly of the government, but that conditions were improving.
Free media is something that we take for granted in America, but many people believe that is because of the work of our founding fathers that this is true. According to Jacob Hornberger, “our ancestors knew that in the absence of such an express prohibition, U.S. officials would do what the Chinese officials are doing — punishing people for criticizing the government.”** Modern day Americans have never had to ask permission to say what they want, and are therefore ignorant to those who constantly do. Although we are unaware of these people, they are certainly aware of us, as they look to the United States to guide them into a new age.
*http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_371/ai_n6204998/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1
**http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-08-21.asp
Free media is something that we take for granted in America, but many people believe that is because of the work of our founding fathers that this is true. According to Jacob Hornberger, “our ancestors knew that in the absence of such an express prohibition, U.S. officials would do what the Chinese officials are doing — punishing people for criticizing the government.”** Modern day Americans have never had to ask permission to say what they want, and are therefore ignorant to those who constantly do. Although we are unaware of these people, they are certainly aware of us, as they look to the United States to guide them into a new age.
*http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_371/ai_n6204998/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1
**http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-08-21.asp
Friday, December 5, 2008
political parties
The political party that would benefit our country is the centrist party. This party believes in having an open mind, which is a very important quality in government. By opposing extreme views, more progress could be achieved, and perhaps congress would be able to agree more readily. This would be a positive change that would benefit our country, because we would be able to have decisions made quickly.
The downside of having everyone from the same party, is that there are no opposing views. Sometimes when two people disagree, the compromise is actually what is best for the people. It can also be hard to present new ideas, because people can be stuck in their own ways. If the government was of the same party, it might not be the best for the people. After all, democracy is having everyone have their say, so if we only have one political party, we wouldn't really be following our own ideas.
The downside of having everyone from the same party, is that there are no opposing views. Sometimes when two people disagree, the compromise is actually what is best for the people. It can also be hard to present new ideas, because people can be stuck in their own ways. If the government was of the same party, it might not be the best for the people. After all, democracy is having everyone have their say, so if we only have one political party, we wouldn't really be following our own ideas.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Falun Gong: Human Rights In China
There are times in life when we are faced with choices. Some are easy, but many are hard. It is at those times that we discover something about ourselves; something shocking, and yet, not totally unexpected. It seems that, for me, this is one of these times. I understand the implications of the world wide web, and how one story can change your life forever.
In 1992 a religious group called Falun Gong began in China. True the religion had been passed down for centuries, master to decibel, but in ‘92, the public was made aware. Mr. L. Hongzhi is credited with the knowledge, as he published books, and gave lectures about the subject. Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, grew rapidly gaining followers until the religion swelled to almost 100,000,000 people.
Falun Gong is a combination of Buddhism, Taoism, and traditional Qigong. Spiritual mediation is combined with exercise to promote Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance. For followers of Fulan Dafa, it is a very relaxing, and stress free way to start or end your day, leaving the follower with better health and mind. Falun Dafa teaches the principles of nonviolence, tolerance, and a general self-improvement.
While the religious movement continued to grow, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) began to crack down. The party felt the movement was too strong, and became jealous of the popularity of Falun Gong. On April 25th, 1999, 10,000 practitioners were protesting the arrest of 45 members of their own. While the 45 were released, it marked the beginning of the persecution to come.
As with the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese Government used propaganda to cast a bad light on Falun Gong. The group was named the “top class enemy” and Chinese citizens were told of it’s evil ways. Followers of Fulan Gong were told to renounce the religion and sign statements saying they no longer believed it’s ways. Those who resisted, or who protested where beaten, tortured, sent to labor camps, or some combination of the three.
Today Falun Gong is followed throughout the world, except in the country where it originated. Even with the recurrence of other religions, Falun Dafa is still banned. Followers practice in secret, going to “safe houses” or hoping they will not be discovered in their own homes. Others have moved to different countries, particularly America, but are now forever banned from their home nation, less they be thrown in prison for their beliefs. Though some still practice Falun Dafa, most feel that it is a lost cause, one that is not worth the price of family. One woman says, “ her spirituality has died: ‘I believe in nothing.’"* Others feel that the task their leaders ask to too hard. Perhaps the leaders who are forced to live in our country or others have forgotten how hard freedom is to come by in their home country. As they ask for more and more demonstrations, the followers in China ask why?
It’s hard to say exactly why the CCP banned Falun Gong. I myself would like to know, but I have a feeling that it is one of these things that just happens. Those unsolved mysteries that never seem to end. I would like to believe that it will one day be solved, and that the religion will be followed again, but I’m not so sure. I just find it so hard to believe that this could happen. Yes I think that the persecution is true, and some of the horror stories, even though the thought that human beings could do that to each other is horrifying. It just seems like too much, almost too much at once, as I am just beginning to understand most of it today. It is also difficult to understand the whole picture as much of what we see is tainted by someone else's view. May of the web sites that I looked at seemed to have their own opinion, without meaning too, not that you can look at the communist side for fear of the consequences. It is very hard for me to write this opinion when I’m not sure of all the facts and even if they are true. I guess my biggest hang-up is how far people will go for power.
*http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,165163,00.html
http://www.falundafa.org
http://www.falundafainfo.net
In 1992 a religious group called Falun Gong began in China. True the religion had been passed down for centuries, master to decibel, but in ‘92, the public was made aware. Mr. L. Hongzhi is credited with the knowledge, as he published books, and gave lectures about the subject. Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, grew rapidly gaining followers until the religion swelled to almost 100,000,000 people.
Falun Gong is a combination of Buddhism, Taoism, and traditional Qigong. Spiritual mediation is combined with exercise to promote Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance. For followers of Fulan Dafa, it is a very relaxing, and stress free way to start or end your day, leaving the follower with better health and mind. Falun Dafa teaches the principles of nonviolence, tolerance, and a general self-improvement.
While the religious movement continued to grow, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) began to crack down. The party felt the movement was too strong, and became jealous of the popularity of Falun Gong. On April 25th, 1999, 10,000 practitioners were protesting the arrest of 45 members of their own. While the 45 were released, it marked the beginning of the persecution to come.
As with the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese Government used propaganda to cast a bad light on Falun Gong. The group was named the “top class enemy” and Chinese citizens were told of it’s evil ways. Followers of Fulan Gong were told to renounce the religion and sign statements saying they no longer believed it’s ways. Those who resisted, or who protested where beaten, tortured, sent to labor camps, or some combination of the three.
Today Falun Gong is followed throughout the world, except in the country where it originated. Even with the recurrence of other religions, Falun Dafa is still banned. Followers practice in secret, going to “safe houses” or hoping they will not be discovered in their own homes. Others have moved to different countries, particularly America, but are now forever banned from their home nation, less they be thrown in prison for their beliefs. Though some still practice Falun Dafa, most feel that it is a lost cause, one that is not worth the price of family. One woman says, “ her spirituality has died: ‘I believe in nothing.’"* Others feel that the task their leaders ask to too hard. Perhaps the leaders who are forced to live in our country or others have forgotten how hard freedom is to come by in their home country. As they ask for more and more demonstrations, the followers in China ask why?
It’s hard to say exactly why the CCP banned Falun Gong. I myself would like to know, but I have a feeling that it is one of these things that just happens. Those unsolved mysteries that never seem to end. I would like to believe that it will one day be solved, and that the religion will be followed again, but I’m not so sure. I just find it so hard to believe that this could happen. Yes I think that the persecution is true, and some of the horror stories, even though the thought that human beings could do that to each other is horrifying. It just seems like too much, almost too much at once, as I am just beginning to understand most of it today. It is also difficult to understand the whole picture as much of what we see is tainted by someone else's view. May of the web sites that I looked at seemed to have their own opinion, without meaning too, not that you can look at the communist side for fear of the consequences. It is very hard for me to write this opinion when I’m not sure of all the facts and even if they are true. I guess my biggest hang-up is how far people will go for power.
*http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,165163,00.html
http://www.falundafa.org
http://www.falundafainfo.net
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Revisions of "Organic Or Local?"
If you walk into any supermarket today, a variety of foods await you. Traveling down the produce isle, several thoughts may occur to you. As you pick up an apple, one thought in particular runs through your mind: organic; or conventional? This debate has been going on for years; the choice to buy organically grown produce, or food grown in the conventional way. Today people are taking the game one step further, deliberating whether to buy locally. It’s a tough decision, one with many options and concerns to think about.
Today it seems to be a fad to buy organic produce because it is said to be healthier for you, and better for the environment. But organic is not always greener. I am reminded of a bumper sticker saying, “Don’t eat fossil fuels, buy local!” According to TIME Magazine, this is most often the case. While it’s true that some local farmers grow organic produce, a majority of what you buy in the store is not from around here. Products are primarily shipped from California, South America, or any other number of places where organic food can be grown abundantly, and at most times of the year. Not that there isn’t organic food locally, but if you go into the supermarket, chances are that what you find on the selves, wasn’t grown around here*, or can only be grown during certain seasons.
With the increase of fuel oil prices, we seem to be eating more and more fossil fuels. The number of people buying organic produce is up 17% from figures in 2000**. This is due in part from the idea that organically grown food is “greener” than locally grown produce. Or is it? According to a representative of Goold’s orchard, organically grown food, is not as environmentally friendly as we are led to believe. Organic growing is not as efficient as more conventional methods, due to the increased amount of land needed to grow said crops. You get half the produce for twice the price, as organic food can be upwards of 50% more expensive than orthodox produce***.
While some people would argue that the large shipments of produce are actually cheaper than small, locally driven produce^; the shipment is not the most expensive part of the problem, nor is it the biggest environmental concern. Although 11% of the greenhouse gasses caused by organic farming are from transportation, 83% are due to the agricultural practices*^.
The more pressing reason people seem to be buying organic is the health risk pesticides present, but this is an undocumented problem. Scientists have failed to prove that the low levels of pesticides actually cause cancer, and haven’t found any results from long-term exposure**. According to Goold’s Orchard, spraying too much is undesirable, as it is expensive, and could cause ”super mites”. That means that the mites, and other insects farmers are trying to keep from the crops could become resistant to the pesticides, causing more cost as farmers would have to invest in new pesticides. Spraying in little quantities also keeps down the cost of the product, as insecticides can be expensive, and would drive up the costs of goods, if used excessively.
Spray materials have to follow strict laws. All products come with a specific label, much like those found on medications, and can only be used by people who have a Spray Materials License. Each year these persons must go and have a refresher class, to make sure they know all the rules and regulations.
To me, it seems better to buy locally. Any way to reduce fossil fuel is a greener way to be. Buying locally also helps support our economy, and keeps jobs in our local area. I realize that local produce can be hard to come buy in the different seasons, but that is the time to eat different foods. Remember, a hundred years ago, people only ate strawberries, when it was strawberry season. We just might have to use some of their ideas to help us stay green today. The concern of vitamin deficiency is unprecedented. Many people already take supplements, or the like, everyday, and there are other possibilities, such as frozen, or canned foods. These are still nutritious and have the same benefits as fresh produce.
So the next time you walk into a supermarket, know your choices. Two red apples sit side by side, one local, one organic. Both apples look pretty good, and maybe the organic one appears to be “greener”, perhaps healthier, but think of the taste of that local apple, a taste that is sugary and sweet, not one of fossil fuel.
*(A side note: I realize that this is the World Wide Web, and that there is a chance you could be reading this, and you live in a place with abundant organic food locally, but where I live, that is not typically the case).
**http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245-1,00.html
***http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/116/local
^http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/19/opinion/oew-grier-roberts19
*^http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/food-miles-production-costs-44042808?click=main_sr
Today it seems to be a fad to buy organic produce because it is said to be healthier for you, and better for the environment. But organic is not always greener. I am reminded of a bumper sticker saying, “Don’t eat fossil fuels, buy local!” According to TIME Magazine, this is most often the case. While it’s true that some local farmers grow organic produce, a majority of what you buy in the store is not from around here. Products are primarily shipped from California, South America, or any other number of places where organic food can be grown abundantly, and at most times of the year. Not that there isn’t organic food locally, but if you go into the supermarket, chances are that what you find on the selves, wasn’t grown around here*, or can only be grown during certain seasons.
With the increase of fuel oil prices, we seem to be eating more and more fossil fuels. The number of people buying organic produce is up 17% from figures in 2000**. This is due in part from the idea that organically grown food is “greener” than locally grown produce. Or is it? According to a representative of Goold’s orchard, organically grown food, is not as environmentally friendly as we are led to believe. Organic growing is not as efficient as more conventional methods, due to the increased amount of land needed to grow said crops. You get half the produce for twice the price, as organic food can be upwards of 50% more expensive than orthodox produce***.
While some people would argue that the large shipments of produce are actually cheaper than small, locally driven produce^; the shipment is not the most expensive part of the problem, nor is it the biggest environmental concern. Although 11% of the greenhouse gasses caused by organic farming are from transportation, 83% are due to the agricultural practices*^.
The more pressing reason people seem to be buying organic is the health risk pesticides present, but this is an undocumented problem. Scientists have failed to prove that the low levels of pesticides actually cause cancer, and haven’t found any results from long-term exposure**. According to Goold’s Orchard, spraying too much is undesirable, as it is expensive, and could cause ”super mites”. That means that the mites, and other insects farmers are trying to keep from the crops could become resistant to the pesticides, causing more cost as farmers would have to invest in new pesticides. Spraying in little quantities also keeps down the cost of the product, as insecticides can be expensive, and would drive up the costs of goods, if used excessively.
Spray materials have to follow strict laws. All products come with a specific label, much like those found on medications, and can only be used by people who have a Spray Materials License. Each year these persons must go and have a refresher class, to make sure they know all the rules and regulations.
To me, it seems better to buy locally. Any way to reduce fossil fuel is a greener way to be. Buying locally also helps support our economy, and keeps jobs in our local area. I realize that local produce can be hard to come buy in the different seasons, but that is the time to eat different foods. Remember, a hundred years ago, people only ate strawberries, when it was strawberry season. We just might have to use some of their ideas to help us stay green today. The concern of vitamin deficiency is unprecedented. Many people already take supplements, or the like, everyday, and there are other possibilities, such as frozen, or canned foods. These are still nutritious and have the same benefits as fresh produce.
So the next time you walk into a supermarket, know your choices. Two red apples sit side by side, one local, one organic. Both apples look pretty good, and maybe the organic one appears to be “greener”, perhaps healthier, but think of the taste of that local apple, a taste that is sugary and sweet, not one of fossil fuel.
*(A side note: I realize that this is the World Wide Web, and that there is a chance you could be reading this, and you live in a place with abundant organic food locally, but where I live, that is not typically the case).
**http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245-1,00.html
***http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/116/local
^http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/19/opinion/oew-grier-roberts19
*^http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/food-miles-production-costs-44042808?click=main_sr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)