Is the choice now between saving the planet or saving developing nations? What a ghastly dilemma to be faced with, but one that we may all soon have to make.
Carbon footprinting has become the call from environmentalists and climate conservationists. The idea is to label all imported food indicating the carbon footprint it leaves behind in getting to the supermarket. Some prefer to call it "airmiles" to indicate the most likely method of transport used to ensure the fresh produce on sale is what it is claimed to be - fresh.
At face value, it would seem like a good idea to make consumers aware of the contribution their purchase is making to despoiling the planet for future generations. After all, if you know a packet of beans from Kenya has a higher airmiles value than the one produced locally, is it not natural to buy the carbon efficient product?
But so many of the calculations are guesswork as they fail to take into account other energy consuming factors which are all part of getting produce from farm to table.
Level playing field
There have been a number of interesting surveys and speeches in recent months which have served to demonstrate the difficulties in trying to establish a level playing field to enable consumers to compare on a like-for-like basis.
It serves little purpose to claim that in airshipping fresh produce from Africa, the carbon footprint is much higher than that of produce grown in Europe. In doing so, there may be several aspects that are overlooked.
For example, because of climate differences between the two continents, there is a big disparity between the carbon footprints emitted by farms in Europe than that in Africa. In Africa it is estimated to be one-sixth of that in Europe.
Many fresh flowers grown in Holland, for example, will be produced under glass - in a hothouse. This expends a much higher carbon footprint than growing fresh flowers in Kenya where there is ample sunshine.
For many years western nations have called upon developing countries to produce crops suitable for their markets. Yet very little of this produce is of any benefit to the indigenous population, other than to provide cash to improve living standards. It is estimated a farmer growing foodstuff for export will get six times more money than if he grew produce for domestic consumption. It is therefore easy to see why an impoverished farmer will opt for crops for export when he has a family to support. An income of a dollar a day, all that is gained in producing local crops, will not pay for the basic necessities.
Having coerced farmers in developing nations to grow crops of little or no benefit to their diets, the West is now measuring the worth of the same produce on the basis of airmiles consumed, or the carbon footprint the item leaves behind.
Included in these calculations is the "cost" of carbon footprinting caused by the use of chemicals and artificial fertilisers, which the West asked farmers to use to ensure consistently high quality produce, instead of their centuries-old ways. Now the farmers are being told to employ organic farming methods, as it is what is most in demand in the West and can achieve an even higher rate of return. So farmers are reverting to their old ways of growing produce and forsaking the "new" Western methods previously demanded of them.
But even that is now under suspicion. Crops which were given the seal of approval for being organically grown are now listed as suspect. The Soil Association, which certifies about 80 per cent of organic produce in the UK, has threatened to take away organic certification from farms in East Africa because their produce is transported to Europe by air - the airmiles tariff again - contributing to global warming.
More equitable ways
It is a simple fact of life that virtually no country has achieved economic progress without first achieving success in agricultural development. Once this is achieved, then it follows that the welfare of the people will also improve. In "punishing" Third World countries by imposing airmiles on their produce, western countries are ensuring the status quo for the impoverished people. What must be found are more equitable ways which ensure the proper development of those nations most in need of many of the basics western nations take for granted.
It is a dilemma that is being faced more and more not only by governments but also by consumers. While everyone wants to do their bit to stop climate change, the poser is whether it is better to buy locally-produced commodities, or buy the same item imported from abroad, and thus help the poor Third World farmers' trade their way out of poverty.
But in boycotting imported goods we deny the right of farmers we do not know and likely never meet, to exist.
Perhaps the answer is, rather than label produce with airmiles or carbon footprints, for the West to approach the problem with more serious intent and drastically reduce carbon emission. The pathetically low targets that have been negotiated so far will do little to bring down carbon emissions globally. Environmentalists' talk of the great leaps forward in this direction is all hot air, which merely worsens a dire situation. It is not only a case of caring for the planet, but also caring for our neighbour.
