No one have an opinion on this?
Results 1 to 20 of 23
Racism, nationalism and environmentalism
I came across this quite interesting article about some of the nationalistic and, indeed, racist implications of green politics. It looks at the actual policies proposed by the UK Green Party and shows what they would mean in practice for Britain and its relationship with the outside world.
What do people think? Is it justifiable to oppose things like mass immigration and trade with non-European countries if such things are viewed as detrimental to the environment?
-------------
Vote green – go blackshirt
Rob Johnston
These are the policies of one of Britain’s most influential political parties: a party that has steadily increased its vote over the last decade; a party that appeals overwhelmingly to whites; and a party that shares significant objectives with neo-fascists and religious fundamentalists.
- Forbid the purchase of corner shops by migrants
- Stop people from inner cities moving to the countryside to protect traditional lifestyles
- Grant British citizenship only to children born here
- Boycott food grown by black farmers and subsidise crops grown by whites
- Restrict tourism and immigration from outside Europe
- Prohibit embryo research
- Stop lorry movements on the Lord’s Day
- Require State approval for national sports teams to compete overseas
- Disconnect Britain from the European electricity grid
- Establish a "new order" between nations to resolve the world economic crisis
Perhaps - the BNP? Despite its attempts to appear modern and inclusive and the soothing talk in its 2005 General Election Manifesto, of "genuine ethnic and cultural diversity" [1].
Or UKIP? It harbours some pretty backward-looking individuals - but would they stop Britain buying electricity from France if necessary?
Or, maybe, the Conservatives? Could that be a list of recommendations from one of Dave’s lesser-known policy groups - chaired by the ghost of Enoch Powell - quietly shredded to avoid "re-contaminating the Brand"?
Actually, affiliates of the progressive consensus may be surprised to learn that all the reactionary policies in the first paragraph are from the Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (MfSS) or were adopted at the party’s Autumn Conference in Liverpool over the weekend of September 13-16, 2007 [2].
Of course, the Green Party will protest against the accusation of reactionary politics. However, in an article critical of the G8 leaders in June, George Monbiot, (capo di tutti capi of the green movement) advised readers to judge politicians for "what they do, not what they say".
For example, as well as supporting ethnic and cultural diversity, the BNP says it accepts:
"... the right of law-abiding minorities, in our country because they or their ancestors came here legally, to remain here and to enjoy the full protection of the law against any form of harassment or hostility..." [3]But, use Monbiot's argument, disregard the rhetoric and look at what the rest of the BNP manifesto promises would actually do and it remains a party of racist and neo-fascist ideology - internationally isolationist and domestically reactionary.
The trouble for Greens is that their manifesto pledges would result in many of the same outcomes as the BNP programme. You will not find the words "Boycott food grown by black farmers and subsidise crops grown by whites", in the Green Party’s manifesto, but consider Monbiot’s advice about the effects of these policies:
"The Green Party recognises that subsidies are sometimes necessary to protect local, regional and national economies and the environment, and we will support them in these instances" [4].The paradox of arguing for Fair Trade while refusing to buy African vegetables because of "food miles" has been noted many times, but it is a paradox the Green Party simply ignores. According to the Guardian, Britain has two black farmers [6], so any policy to subsidise domestic produce and erect barriers to outsiders will, ipso facto, support white farmers and disadvantage black farmers. Even if supplies are "obtained from neighbouring countries", white European farmers benefit at the expense of poor farmers in Africa and the developing world.
"Controls such as tariff barriers and quotas should be gradually introduced on a national and/or regional bloc level, with the aim of allowing localities and countries to produce as much of their food, goods and services as they can themselves. Anything that cannot be provided nationally should be obtained from neighbouring countries, with long distance trade the very last resort" [5].
On agricultural policy in general, Greens will agree with the following sentiments:
"Britain's farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation's need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain, sustainable agriculture, decreased reliance on petro-chemical products and more organic production" [7].However, those promises come from the BNP 2005 General Election Manifesto - in a section indistinguishable from the Green Party manifesto:
"To be able to fulfil all our basic food needs locally. To grow as many other products as we can to meet our basic needs (e.g. for textiles, fuel, paper) on a local or regional basis. To enable all communities to have access to land which can be used for growing for basic needs. To ensure that all growing systems use only natural, renewable inputs and that all organic waste outputs are able to be recycled back into the soil or water system" [8].Perhaps this is why, according to the BNP:
"We are the only true 'Green Party' in Britain as only the BNP intends to end mass immigration into Britain and thereby remove at a stroke the need for an extra 4 million homes in the green belts of the South East and elsewhere, which are required to house the influx of 5 million immigrants expected to enter the country under present trends over the next twenty years" [9].Greens agree with the BNP about migration and the green belt. They promise to: minimise the environmental degradation caused by migration; not allow increased net migration; and end the pressure on the Green Belt by reducing population and stopping growth-oriented development [10]. Reduction in non-white tourism and immigration would be an inevitable consequence of government restrictions on air travel. Few refugees from Iraq, Darfur, Zimbabwe manage to get all the way to Britain without a large carbon footprint, neither can tourists from beyond Europe.
How about the accusation that the Green Party would:
"Stop people from inner cities moving to the countryside to protect traditional lifestyles and prevent crime; forbid the purchase of corner shops by migrants."Here, are the relevant resolutions from the MfSS:
"Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied: [11]The examples (breathtakingly disingenuous) assert that they intend simply to stop Richard Branson driving a new main line through Stonehenge, Rupert Murdoch building a printing press on top of Uluru or Caesar’s Palace opening a casino at the South Pole.
a) The ecology of the recipient area would be significantly adversely affected by in-comers to the detriment of the wider community (eg. National Parks, Antarctica).
b) The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples (eg Australian aboriginal people) whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers.
c) The prospective migrants have, on average, equal or greater economic power than the residents of the recipient area and they or their families were not forced to leave the area in the recent past."
"Regions or communities must have the right to reject specific individuals on grounds of public safety" [12].
Surely the Greens, of all people, know that Britain has hardly any desolate tundra and few Australian aboriginal communities. In practice, these policies would give the "indigenous" white folk of a quaint rural hamlet the right to rebuff a Leicester Bangladeshi purchaser for its corner shop because she has "greater economic power" than the villagers – whose "traditional lifestyle" would be "adversely affected" by her ethnicity and religion. They could also keep her out "on ground of public safety" because her inner city Muslim children are more likely to be criminals than their own offspring.
Not surprisingly, the BNP agrees with the Greens about the "right of all peoples to self-determination and that must include the indigenous peoples of these islands" [13]... Alas, not every small community is Ambridgely-correct – thrilled to embrace a half-Irish gay couple, a Vicar with a Hindu girlfriend and a mixed-race child, and an African husband for the daughter of the Lord of the Manor with the same enthusiasm it has for organic ciabatta and carbon trading.
In the 1980s, when the Thatcher government restricted immigration to Britain to those with at least one grandparent born here, it was accused of constructive racism. Thatcher claimed her measures were not racist – any discrimination against nonwhites was just an incidental consequence of the need to maintain what is now called "community cohesion". Green Party policy would go even further down the road of constructive racism than Mrs Thatcher, refusing citizenship to children born overseas even if their parents hold British passports [14].
The Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence identified "unwitting racism" in the police that can arise from well intentioned words or actions that arise out of uncritical self-understanding born out of an inflexible ethos of the "traditional" way of doing things:
"It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such racism it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation" [15].By its uncritical acceptance of "traditional" ways of doing things - from the "spiritual link between ourselves and nature" [16] in agriculture, to anti-globalisation, to making the home "an important centre of economic activity" [17] - the Green Party allies itself with some of the most reactionary contemporary political forces in the land. And the "traditional" way of doing things is usually a reactionary approach to modern social issues.
Green Party agreement with Christian fundamentalists on at least two issues requires no textual analysis: MfSS policy number EU523 would ban lorry movements on Sunday throughout Europe and H329 calls for an immediate ban on embryo manipulation and cloning for any research, therapeutic or reproductive purposes [18].
Policies EU532 and 533 would scrap all connection of electricity grids throughout Europe - partly because interconnectivity allows nuclear generated power to creep along the wires [19].
For national sports teams, CMS871 would require politicians to determine "whether it is appropriate for the team to take part in competition against a country with whom normal friendly, respectful, or diplomatic relations are not possible” [20].
It is frequent for parties on the extreme fringes to share an analysis of contemporary politics - and Greens and BNP certainly share a lot of analysis. From the BNP 2005 Manifesto [21]:
"For most of human history, the existence of such ethnic and cultural diversity among humanity was so obvious and apparently unchallengeably natural that the political theorists and philosophers of past generations simply took it for granted. Only in the last few decades has this been changed forever by the advent of mass passenger travel, the insatiable desire of the globalised capitalist economy for cheap labour, and the worldwide reach of US consumerist culture through film and television."From the Green Party Manifesto:
"That poison is in large measure the blind economic force of global capitalism, with its insistence on the unrestricted flow of goods, capital and labour to wherever in the world they will make the maximum short-term profit ... It is not about 'love' and 'tolerance', it is about profit."
"Formidably powerful and publicly unaccountable transnational companies are becoming ever more footloose, their strength and mobility facilitated both by technological advances, and by the progressive withdrawal of investment controls by governments and by multilateral institutions such as WTO. TNCs are now increasingly able to exploit differences in social and environmental standards between countries in order to maximise profits" [22]. "The rush towards globalisation is neither inevitable nor desirable. It is leading to the sharp reduction in powers of local and indigenous communities, states, and even nations, to control their futures, as economic power is transferred to global institutions. A worldwide homogenization of diverse, local, and indigenous cultures, social and economic forms, as well as values and living patterns increasingly reflect the new global monoculture" [23].To solve these "problems" the Green Party calls for an international "new order" to address a "global economic … cris[i]s" [24]. That language requires a very special kind of historical ignorance. Can no one in the Green Party have noticed that the last ideology to emphasise the spiritual oneness of man and nature ("blood and soil") and used the phrase "new order" was the fascism of the mid-20th century? A fascism represented in contemporary politics by the BNP. Similar analyses may be common for parties on opposite wings of politics, but it is not so common to posit the same solutions.
No doubt, when the Green Party adopted its manifesto there was no deliberate intention to implement a reactionary and racist strategy. But the Green Party is overwhelmingly white: of more than three dozen individuals listed as speakers and discussion leaders at its Autumn Conference only one was obviously a member of a visible ethnic minority (VEMs to those in the know) [25]. Even the discussion on issues affecting women from ethnic minority communities was led by a white woman and just 2% of Green Party candidates in the 2006 local elections were VEMs [26]. Perhaps the absence of minority members in Green Party counsels results in the same sort of "canteen culture" that affects the police, making it oblivious to the right-wing, pseudo racist nature of its plans for Britain.
The lessons of the Macpherson Report’s "institutional racism" could be expanded to include "institutional reactionaryism" and should be learnt not only by the state apparatus and large companies, but also by the Green Party - which declares its desire for a fair and just society.
References:
1.BNP 2005 General Election Manifesto: Rebuilding British Democracy (BNP 2005) pg 3 http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manifesto2005.pdf
2.Green Party Autumn Conference 2007: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/conference/2007/Final_Agenda_Autumn07.pdf
3.BNP 2005: pg 21
4.Green Party Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (GP MfSS): EU413 http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/
5.Ibid: EU443
6.The Guardian Monday June 26, 2006 “Meet Britain's other black farmer” http://www.guardian.co.uk/country/article/0,,1805973,00.html
7.BNP 2005: pg47
8.GP MfSS: AG500, AG501, AG502, AG503
9.BNP 2005: pg 48
10.GP MfSS: MG200, MG400, CY561
11.Ibid: MG204
12.Ibid: MG207
13.BNP 2005: pg 3
14.GP MfSS: NY515
15.Rachel Morris, Cardiff Law School: Summary of Macpherson Report: http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/tlru/Lawrence.pdf
16.GP MfSS: AG100
17.Ibid: EC403
18.Ibid: EU523, H329
19.Ibid: EU532, EU533
20.Ibid: CMS871
21.BNP 2005: pg 18-19
22.GP MfSS: EC902
23.Ibid: EC903
24.Ibid: EC900
25.Green Party Autumn Conference 2007 Timetable. http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/conference/2007/Liverpool_timetable_full.pdf
26.Green Party Candidates for May 4th 2006 http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/election/2WebverLE06cand.htm
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/02/vote_green_go_b.html
No one have an opinion on this?
I wouldn't vote for them.
I will have to examine the platform of the Green Party of Canada to see if they are eco-fascist or eco-socialist. Sounds like these Green parties can develop either way.
What opinion is there to have besides that they're assholes? I don't think this says anything about environmentalism as a whole- its an issue addressed by a wide range of groups and parties from the far right to the far left, so obviously there will be some fucked interpretations.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
Sorry, what opinion is there to have besides that Vanguard1917 is an arsehole?
Environmentalism in general is not a problem, and only arseholes think it is. Of course, when it comes down to it, there are parties that say they support environmentalism, but end up supporting big government (which is inherently anti-environmentalist, just as big business or big capitalism is anti-environmentalist).
Having just browsed across the article posted, I have to say that it is mostly a crock of shit. It (or at least the poster) attributes opinions and views to all green party members that simply don't exist. It attributes policy to the party, which the party explicitly denies!
Yes there are problems in the manifesto, but I get the impression that the original author is deliberately spinning things to make the worst impression, when the reality is nothing like the spin.
Of course, I don't have the time, nor the inclination to research this further (I'm hardly about to convince VG, and most other people aren't going to read the entire article, let along any response I put up (VG wouldn't read any response either)).
So yeah, I'll just finish with, this article is full of spin, and I would take it's conclusions (if at all), with a large chunk of salt. Whether the greens in the UK really do think what the article attributes to them I don't know, but I would suggest that people who really care do a lot more research then just reading this article (perhaps try and read the original manifesto?), and remember to critically analysis everything (including this post).
But aren't the core policy propositions of the Green Party shared by environmentalists in general, whether 'left' or 'right'?
The article makes the point that most greens would not see their politics as reactionary or nationalist, let alone racist. Indeed, many greens would describe themselves as progressives, radicals, leftists, etc. The author's point is that reactionary politics is the practical implication of green policies.
For example, take the green emphasis on the need for local agricultural production. Like the article says, most greens would not say that we should boycott imports from non-white countries - that would be racism and the vast majority of greens are probably not 'racists' in any self-conscious way. But the Green Party manifesto does argue that we need to limit trade to 'neighbouring', i.e. European, countries:
And, of course, it's not just the UK Green Party which argues for localised food production; the entire green movement does. But what will making 'long distance trade [with the UK] the very last resort' mean in practice? It will mean cutting off a bulk of the world - the majority of whom happen to be non-white - from an economic relationship with a Western European country. It will mean, in practice, boycotting products made by non-whites. Is such economic nationalism justified if it is presented in green language?
Another example is the green opposition to the global movement of people. Again, this is a position shared by all environmentalists; they all oppose the means by which human beings travel and move around the world. Environmentalists in the UK argue that we need to limit air travel. (Prominent 'leftwing' greens like George Monbiot argue that people just need to travel less altogether, since travelling by boats, buses and trains also pollutes.) Of course, restricting air travel would, in practice, mean restrictions on immigration, as well as to non-European tourism.
Eco-capitalism:
Encouraging the local production of food would require an end to subsidies and implementation of environmental costs associated with the movement of goods. Ditto for air travel. You would then sit back and allow the 'market to decide'.
There's no need to impose tariffs when there is an alternative method to make environmentally unfavourable activities more expensive. Nor is there a need to restrict immigration when other changes can achieve the officially stated goal.
It should go without saying that environmentalists should have a global perspective in mind, which the UK Greens appear to lack. Then again, they are working within the current system of competing capitalist/nationalist countries and corporate fiefdoms.
I defiantly wouldn't vote for such a party that wants to inflict racism on the nation.
[FONT=Arial]Economic Left/Right: -7.88[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] Marxist[/FONT][FONT=Arial] - Nihilist - Anti-Zionist - Atheist - Proletariat - Materialist - Anti-Consumerist[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
May I suggest that you don't take one well known anti-environmentalist source as the only place you get any knowledge about a party?
That would be like only reading the Daily Mail when wanting to know about the Lib-Dems or the Labour party (I think).
Of course, I don't encourage you to vote at all, just to take this load of shit with a lot of salt and think carefully about the arguments made, and consult the primary document being discussed. I.e. make up your own mind.
Take the idea that local produce should be consumed locally. That isn't racist (in and of itself at any rate), and only idiots and people trying to spin an anti-environmentalist line would take that position.
Saying, "I think that food for an area should come from that area, and not from thousands of kilometres away" is not a racist statement in any way shape or form. Yes, in Britain that means that more food would come from Britain and Europe then from Africa, but it also means that more food eaten in Africa would come from Africa, instead of the EU and the USA.
Remember, the free market is a major source of problems for many of the African farmers, they have to ship food to countries like Britain, because at home they are being out competed by food from the USA!
Oh dear, I've just fucked up one of the big arguments in that article... (And I bet VG won't even bother reading it, let alone respond to it.)
Not really. Environmentalists have many different "policy propositions" for dealing with the problems facing the environment and those propositions differ greatly from right to left and even within the right and the left. You're creating a false correlation here. Do all communists believe all dissidents and criminals should be executed because I could pull some documents from a few tankie nutfucks? Of course not. Same principle is at work here.
How is not trading with certain countries racist? If anything, this solution would be beneficial to all involved. Local food would be fresher and require less transportation, etc. It would help the less-developed countries as, ideally, the Western nations wouldn't be flooding their markets with cheap (subsidized) foods and completely ruining the local food economy. Do you pay attention to third world issues at all? This has been a major point brought up by third-world delegates in all of the major trade negotiations since 1999. Indeed, this is one of the major issues that destroyed the last round of WTO talks and brought that organization to a standstill.
This is not a position shared by all environmentalists, actually. Stop generalizing the most extreme positions as being median or universal positions. Many environmentalists simply support encouraging less polluting methods of transport.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
We're mainly refering to imports here. Would you support restrictions on imports from the developing world? Greens are against us consuming food that has been produced abroad, in developing countries like India and China. They propose economic nationalism and local self-sufficiency.
I don't know any environmentalists that don't support air travel restrictions. I'm sure it's safe to say that they all do. And, in practice, the UK restricting air travel will also likely mean restricting non-European immigration and tourism into the UK.
Most food imports come from the major western nations because they subsidize them and produce cheaper than their third-world competitors, who actually do tend to focus on national growing. Or they did. As I said before, this has been a major issue with the WTO as it has made exporting difficult for third-world nations while at the same time hammering them to open up their borders and be flooded by subsidized crops grown by some of major agriculture corporations. You're basically calling for the continuation of these policies that the people you claim to be behind don't even support. Hmm.
Well here's one for you. Most of the environmentalists I've encountered that are more mainstream have had no problem with air travel. They're more concerned with the continued focus on automobile transportation above all else in this country. Perhaps its different in the UK.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
You may have encountered them, and i take your word for it, but such people do not, in the main, have any political existence. If there are any environmentalist organisations out there that don't oppose air travel expansion, feel free to tell me their names.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm arguing against environmentalists who wish to further restrict imports from the developing world. Yes, developing countries already face West-imposed barriers in exporting their products, which is cause for outrage. So why should we support environmentalists who wish to make it even more difficult for developing countries by calling for boycotts of their products?
Below is an interesting list of where our food typically comes from, compiled by the Independent newspaper (alongside a very annoying eco-article about 'air miles' and how we should all be 'buying British' and 'local'). You will see that much of what is bought in UK supermarkets comes from developing countries - including Ghana, Peru, Argentina, Thailand, Indonesia, India, China, Guatemala, Egypt, South Africa and Zambia.
You would support boycotting these countries' products, would you?
------------------
Gobbling up the planet: Your guide to food miles
APPLES (FUJI)
Seventy-six per cent of apples consumed in the UK come from overseas. Washington, home of the Red Delicious and grower of half of America's apples, produces 135,000 tons of Fuji apples a year. They also come from China and Japan, and have a long shelf-life. With refrigeration, Fuji apples can last five or six months.
Typical exporter: US
Food miles to UK: 3,700
C02 (kg per pack of four): by sea 0.06; by air 1.68
Price: £1.99/500g, £2.98/kg
BEEF
The United States, Brazil, the European Union, Japan and the People's Republic of China are the world's largest consumers of beef, while the world's largest exporters of beef are Australia, Brazil, Argentina and Canada respectively. While British beef is clearly labelled in UK supermarkets, Argentinian beef is still a best seller here.
Typical exporter: Argentina
Food miles to UK: 6,900
CO2 (kg/kg): by sea 0.22; by air 6.33
Price: approx £6/kg
PINEAPPLE
South-east Asia dominates world production of pineapples. Total world production in 2001 was 14.220 million tons. The primary exporters of fresh pineapples in 2001 were Costa Rica, 322,000 tons; Ivory Coast, 188,000 tons; and the Philippines, 135,000 tons. In the UK we get most of our pineapples from Ghana.
Typical exporter: Ghana
Food miles to UK: 3,100
CO2 (kg/pineapple): by sea 0.22; by air 6.26
Price: approx £2/kg
TOMATOES
The tomato plant was first grown in England in the 1590s, but despite being a staple of greenhouses countrywide, China produces the most, churning out more than 30 million per year. UK consumers have become used to getting their tomatoes from Saudi Arabia. Grown to look good and last for ages, these love apples tend to be rather lacking in flavour. The British Tomato Growers Association says two thirds of the tomatoes eaten in the UK are imported.
Typical exporter: Saudi Arabia
Food miles to UK: 3,100
C02 (kg/pack of six): by sea 0.04; by air 1.2
Price: approx 99p/420g £2.35/kg
SPRING ONIONS
The most common kind of spring onion is the Welsh onion, Allium fistulosum. Ironic considering how many scallions are imported from Thailand.
Typical exporter: Thailand
Food miles to UK: 5,900
CO2 (kg/pack): by sea 0.04; by air 1.28
Price: approx 50p/200g; £2.50/kg
POTATOES
According to the British Potato Council, the UK imports about 350,000 tonnes of tatties a year, including during the English season. Even more depressing is the fact that many of these imported varieties may have been in storage for up to six months.
Typical exporter: Israel
Food miles to UK: 2,200
C02 (kg/kg): by sea 0.07; by air 2.0
Price: approx £1.50/kg
ASPARAGUS
Despite the delicious flavour of British asparagus, UK consumers tuck into thousands of tons of Latin American asparagus, even during the British season. Peru is the world's leading asparagus exporter, followed by China and Mexico. The top asparagus importers in 2004 were the United States (92,405 tons), followed by the European Union (external trade 18,565 tons), and Japan (17,148 tons).
Main exporter: Peru
Food miles to UK: 6,300
C02 (kg per pack): by sea 0.05; by air 1.44
Price: £1.99/250g, £7.96/kg
BROCCOLI
Traditional purple sprouting English broccoli is only available from February to April, making eating it year-round an ethics-busting luxury. Interestingly, the Food Standards Agency says frozen broccoli has more nutritional value than fresh florets that have been refrigerated for too long. Buy British and keep it in the freezer.
Main exporter: Spain
Food miles to UK: 780
C02 (kg/broccoli): by sea 0.01; by air 0.22
Price: 38p/ea; £1.28/kg (Sainsbury's)
KING PRAWNS
South-east Asia is where many of the UK's king prawns are intensively farmed. This kind of technique can be harmful to both prawns and people: cancer-causing antibiotic residues were discovered in some Indonesian farmed prawns five years ago, resulting in a slew of EU bans. When bred intensively, the prawns also run the risk of contracting white-spot virus.
Typical exporter: Indonesia
Food miles to UK: 7,300
CO2 (kg per pack): by sea 0.03; by air 0.84
Price: £2.99 per 125g, £23.92 per kg (Sainsbury's)
BANANAS
In 2003, India led the world in banana production, representing approximately 23 per cent of the worldwide crop, most of which was for domestic consumption. The four leading banana exporting countries were Ecuador, Costa Rica, The Philippines, and Colombia, which accounted for about two-thirds of the world's exports. Bananas are refrigerated to between 13.5 and 15C (57 and 59F) during transport.
Typical exporter: India
Food miles to UK: 5,106
C02 (kg/kg): by sea 0.16; by air 4.67
Price: 68p/1kg
SUGARSNAP PEAS
The sweetest pea on the market is surprisingly versatile and can even survive frosts, but it thrives in warmer climates and is grown across Central America and the southern states of America.
Main exporter: Guatemala
Food miles to UK: 5,450 miles
C02(kg/pack): by sea 0.04; by air 1.0
Price: £1.29/200g £6.45/kg
GRAPES
Thanks to their delicate skins, grapes require more packaging to transport them safely than almost any other fruit. Grown for export in Eygpt, South Africa and the US. Owing to the packaging, imported grapes have a doubly large carbon footprint.
Main exporter: Egypt
Food miles to UK: 2,200
C02 (kg/pack): by sea 0.04; by air 1.0
Price: approx £2.50/500g £5/kg
STRAWBERRIES
What could be more British than strawberries on a summer's day? Unfortunately, out-of-season berries from Spain or even California have become the norm for consumers wanting a year-round fix.
Main exporter: Spain
Food miles to Britain: 780
C02 (kg/pack): by sea 0.01; by air 0.19
Price: approx £4/kg
NEW WORLD CHARDONNAY
Thought to be named after a village in the Burgundy region of France, Chardonnay is now the number one grape variety in Australia and the rest of the New World, where its versatility makes it a reliable grape for producing wine in huge quantities. This has led to something of a backlash; TV wine expert Oz Clarke called it "the coloniser and destroyer of the world's vineyards and palates".
Typical exporter: Australia
Food miles to UK: 9,000
C02 (kg/bottle): by sea 0.29; by air 8.27
Price: approx £5
CARROTS
In 2005, China was the largest producer of carrots and turnips, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. China accounted for at least a third of the global output, followed by Russia and the US. In the UK, we get most of our carrots from South Africa, despite the fact that the Western carrot emerged in Europe in the 15th or 16th century.
Typical exporter: South Africa
Food miles to UK: 6,000
CO2 (kg/kg): by sea 0.19; by air 5.5
Price: 69p/kg
AVOCADOS (HASS)
Commercial avocado orchards produce an average of seven tons of the fruit per hectare each year, with some orchards achieving 20 tons per hectare. The fruit is native to Mexico and Central America, although large quantities of avocados are also exported from Israel and South Africa. The avocado is delicate and does not tolerate freezing temperatures and can be grown only in subtropical and tropical climates.
Main exporter: Mexico
Food miles to UK: 5,500
C02 (kg per avocado): by sea 0.03; by air 0.89
Price: £1.99/600g, £3.32/kg (Waitrose)
PEARS
One of the oldest cultivated fruits, the pear regularly popped up in Roman fruit bowls. With more than 30 species, there are few climates that the tree - which can survive temperatures as low as -30C - doesn't thrive in, and wild specimens can be found in Devon and Cornwall. However, all too often we rely on exports from South America and China.
Typical exporter: Argentina
Food miles to UK: 6,900
CO2 (kg per kg): by sea 0.22; by air 6.3
Price: £1.60 per kg
BLUEBERRIES
Although blueberries are native to North America, they are also grown in Australia, New Zealand, South American countries, and Poland, before being air-shipped as fresh produce to markets around the world. Full of antioxidants, these berries may be good to eat, but they're dreadful for the environment.
Typical exporter: South Africa
Food miles to UK: 5,600
Carbon (kg/pack): by sea 0.03; by air 0.77
Price: approx £3.00/150g £10/kg
CHAMPAGNE
Dom Pierre Pérignon spent years trying to keep the bubbles out of his invention. In 17th-century France they were considered a sign of bad wine-making, but the Benedictine monk's aristocratic clients quickly developed a taste for fizz and, realising his success, he told prospective clients that it "tasted like stars". Global consumption now exceeds 300 million bottles a year, and every single one comes from the Champagne region of northern France.
Main exporter: France
Food miles to UK: 239
CO2 (kg per bottle): by sea 0.007; by air 0.2
Price: approx £20
GREEN BEANS
Given that green beans come dried, frozen and canned, it seems unbelievable that they are grown in places such as Zambia, Kenya and Zimbabwe, and then transported to the UK. Refrigeration not only toughens their skins, but also leaches their nutrients.
Typical exporter: Zambia
Food miles to UK: 4,900
CO2 (kg per pack): by sea 0.03; by air 0.9
Price: approx £7.50 per kg
BABY SWEETCORN
The star of stir-fries the country over, baby sweetcorn from foreign climes is a pale imitation of its freshly picked counterpart. It's best when cooked within 30 minutes of harvest, but since much of the sweetcorn that is sold in Britain is grown in Thailand, there's little chance of tasting it at its best.
Typical exporter: Thailand
Food miles to UK: 5,900
CO2 (kg per pack): by sea 0.04; by air 1.03
Price: 99p/130g £7.62/kg
SWEET POTATOES
According to 2004 Food and Agriculture Organisation figures, world production of sweet potatoes is 127,000,000 tons. The majority comes from China with a production of 105,000,000 tons. However, about half of the Chinese crop is used for livestock feed rather than fancy mash.
Main exporter: China
Food miles to Britain: 5,000
C02 (kg/kg): by sea 0.16; by air 0.92
Price: approx £1.50/kg
LAMB
There are 10 times as many sheep as people in New Zealand and more than half of the country's lamb exports travel thousands of miles to the EU, where the UK is the number one customer.
Main exporter: New Zealand
Food miles to UK: 11,700
C02 (kg/kg): by sea 0.38; by air 10.7
Price: £4.99/680g £7.34/kg (Sainsbury's)
CANNED TUNA
Yellowfin tuna can be found in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Once caught, they find their way to Thailand, the biggest producer of tinned tuna in the world. About 70 per cent of all fish eaten in Britain originates in foreign waters.
Main exporter: Thailand
Food miles to UK: 5,900
CO2 (kg/pack): by sea 0.04; by air 1.0
Price: 30p/185g; £2.20/kg
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...te-451139.html
This article is insubstantial, the Green Party in the UK is firmly rooted in left wing politics and from what I've read the author seems to be reading into things alot and making alot of assumptions.
The Green party mayoral candiate for the 2008 elections was at the time and still is a self-proclaimed socialist.
To quote from their manifesto:
MG205 Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation. Preference should not be given to those with resources or desirable skills.
MG206 The Green Party is opposed to forced migration and forced repatriation.
They've never said or done anything racist/fascist.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
I think any 'racism' you find is a result of reading into things too much or misunderstanding the meaning.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
A funny kind of socialist whose party calls for trade restrictions against developing countries...
As to immigration: until fairly recently, the Greens were still arguing in typical Malthusian fashion that the UK population needs to be reduced by two thirds. You can hardly be a big fan of immigration if you think there are already way too many people in the country. Not to mention the fact that restricting air travel would already most likely result in restricting immigration.
Remember, the article is talking about the practical consenquences of Green politics. Although most Greens would not consider themselves nationalists or racists, the policies which they propose are nationalistic and disadvantage non-whites.
Not at all. But I'm not sure that supporting locally grown things has to mean completely disregarding these countries. Ideally, it would mean less exporting into their countries as well, which is the major problem and perhaps less of a focus on cash crops as opposed to figuring out a way to be self-sufficient. Seems to make sense in countries where the rich countries would fuck you over the first chance they get and leave you high and dry...
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
The Green Party is an enthusiastic supporter of the congestion charge, which strikes at those who are least able to pay a heavy financial penalty and yet depend on using cars to travel long distances and reach work each day - the working class. This clearly indicates that the mayoral candidate (Sian Berry) was not a socialist, even though she may have described herself as a socialist to attract popular support from the oppressed, and to obscure the true impact of this policy. As for the issue of immigration, although the Green Party claims that they would revoke all controls which discriminate on the basis of race and other factors if they were placed in a position of power, the relevant section of the manifesto states that:
"It [revised immigration law based on equal access for everyone] will not aim to allow increased net migration to Britain other than for humanitarian reasons or as a result of other Green Party policies."
MfSS Migration, Short Term Policies, Migration Law, MG400
What this suggests is that the Green Party would aim to sustain the current rate of inwards migration to the UK - and given that there are currently people who want to work in the UK and yet are denied the right to do so because they fail to meet the relevant criteria (and so are sometimes forced to enter the country by illegal methods, which means that are not afforded legal protection when they are employed and can be returned to the country of origin if they are identified by the government) this would require the Green Party to maintain existing controls and possibly adopt even stronger controls if more migrants attempted to enter the UK at some point in the future. All migration controls, even those that do not explicitly discriminate between different categories of prospective migrants, are racist, because they encourage workers to view each other as competitors for scarce resources (primarily in the form of jobs) and so lead to the emergence of divisions within the working class, including racism. The only acceptable position for anyone who regards herself as an opponent of racist ideology is to argue for the immediate elimination of all controls which limit the movement of people between or within states.
It is unlikely that many (if any) Green Party members see themselves as racist, because environmentalism is an ideology which is predominant mainly amongst the intelligentsia, although Nazism also contained a strong environmental dynamic, and was partly derived from the wandervoegel movement, which upheld rural life as a model of how people should live. However, the point is that if environmental policies were adopted, there would be racist implications (further undermining the development of the global south, retaining immigration controls) even if this was not the explicit intention of green activists.
Last edited by BobKKKindle$; 5th August 2008 at 15:53.
Calling on British consumers to buy British produce will mean, whether you like it or not, boycotting food from developing countries. It's a chauvinistic demand which has nothing to do with anything progressive.
Indeed. But why would anyone expect a party which sees Britain as grossly overpopulated to have a progressive position on immigration? The Green Party's immigration policy is no better than that of the current government. In fact, it's worse - by opposing air travel, it has already opposed the means of global movement. For environmentalists in general, the more people move, the more they pollute - so it's best that they all stay put.
Did you miss the part where I pointed out it had to be done in a certain way so as not to damage developing countries but actually help them? Maybe you just got a bit excited and posted right away? Cuz it was right after the bit you quoted.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
