Fairphone's environmental footprint only marginally better than Apple

@paulakreuzer I’m not talking about corpus, but about anima. :wink:

On that I happen to disagree, as research has at least not yet proven, that social factors can explain the bad things people do.
While it is true, that peoble being beaten as child are prone to beating their own children, that is by no means a law or if-then connection. And in my humble opinion in those cases it’s rather more a question of the tools you have been given than a question of “the easy way”.
You know the saying: If you just have a hammer, then every problem will be seen as a nail. :wink:

In my opinion the bad is part of human nature or anima as is the good; and if it’s only to make all options available to the individual. While killing someone in general is a bad action, it can be considered doing “good” in other cases; be it self defense (obvious) or killing a dictator (less evident). And when it comes do defining self defense or who is to be considered a dictator, that’s were the ice really turns thin and differend points of view might happen to come to different conclusions.

In the end the definition of “good” and “bad” are not fixed. Even if we in general would surely agree in at least 90% of cases, there will be some percend difference and that’s even though we were raised in like societies with comparable legal and ethical provisions.

Nothing ever is if-then when it comes to human behavior, but that doesn’t diminish the proof that the environment has influence on a person’s moral compass.

Both good and bad are multifactorial (genetics, epigenetics, upbringing & other environmental factors).

1 Like

About that list of 3, feel free to fine grain the list! :slight_smile:

From what I have gathered the vast majority of the vegan movement are specifically doing it for speciesism-related reasons. These are caricatures, they are black and white and they will discriminate outliers just like there are people who deeply and passionately care about dogs but… they’ll eat the BBQ special discount every week in the summer, with their friends, Tokkie-style.

I do agree the environment and animal group are more entwined. Most countries seem to have a “green” political partly (environmentalists/greens) and a “red” political party (socialist-esque within the capitalist system). However we even have a specific anti-speciesism party (Party voor de Dieren; “party for the animals”) and they do not always align with the greens. The difference between the socialists appears larger though. Although it might differ per country. I think a good way is to look at the short term goals which can lead to the long-term interests/benefits @Stefan listed.

You meant to say there is a lack of causality.

Why does a cat kill insects, spiders, mice, and have lame attempts at killing birds (well, mine do)? To play, and to eat. I trick them with grains with chicken powder and they’ll happily eat that. They don’t know better. It is within their nature. We can rationalise alternatives to torture, murder, war, etc. These are the last line of defence some seemingly too easily resort to.

Yes, it does, but

…this is an exception. I am talking about the status quo (ie. the default, modus operandus) of raising cows and chicken. Those pasture chickens have been handled kindly but they are not going to feed the world. I’ll dabble a bit more on that hereunder.

That’s not an argument I’ve heard in the vegan movement, and it isn’t an argument people like Leenaert & friends follow. I’ve seen the distinction drawn between sentient or not, where e.g. mussels are not sentient, and jellyfish are likely not either due to not having a CNS (though they do have a nervous system).

True, vegans don’t care like Paula said, cause they tend to not eat meat, but there are beginner and aspiring vegans and part-time vegans as well. Sadly, vegan circles are not particularly friendly towards those. It is largely (but not entirely as I know a group who’s an exception) an all or nothing clique.

If we are talking Co2 footprint the best you can do is: 1) do not have a child 2) do not use airplanes 3) do not use car for things in a small radius. I, for one, did go for #1 (only 1 tho) but am going for #2 and #3. Going vegetarian (not vegan) is on #5 IIRC. These are extremes, you can also of course very much limit each of these (I am also a proponent of limiting meat intake instead of complete abstention because it works better e.g. it is less defeatist, and allows for a friendly, guilt-free, inclusive diet and [perhaps] migration phase [if not a global migration phase!]). Here’s an example of a website calculating, with examples, your Co2 footprint (Singapore specific) http://whatismycarbonfootprint.com/sg/

Vegan -> I’ve read a study where a variation of vegetarian has a lower Co2 footprint. Take chicken eggs as example. These come from chicken, and they’re very much local. The impact these have on Co2 footprint is negligible. You should also take a look at the impact of soy and palm on the environment. It ain’t pretty, and it has to be transported to “the West”.

Organic -> As well in your chicken example above (I didn’t wanna bring it up then) you are ignoring utilisation of the land. Apart from the animals themselves, if the land can be utilised for trees instead of cows then this has effect on Co2 footprint. Now, there are various reasons why organic is less efficient. For example, the yield is lower and the quality of the products is lower and the land can be reused less quick. Furthermore, you should look up what organic actually means within your jurisdiction.

Local -> A gigantic boat with a huge load of (e.g. avocados) has less impact per person than you going to the store 2x 10 km.

Insects are very Co2-friendly btw (because they are very space efficient and don’t create a lot of methane) and I can recommend trying them. They taste far better than it sounds, especially if culinarily prepared. They’re a reliant protein source in countries where other more common sources of protein are less easily locally available.

4 Likes

Yess, Anthony! We should not mind Apple being almost as good as us! To be able to be the Golden Standard is a great achievement. :sunglasses:

3 Likes

We completely agree on the fact, that human behaviour is multifactorial and only partly understood.
I just forgot one word, which I added below (in bold letters):

And it was an answer to the statement from @stefanThe bad comes from the outside.

Just for clarification.

@JeroenH
To the example of child-beating.

Not exactly. There is some causality; it’s just not monocausal.

To your examples / list.

When naming Greenpeace for the first interest group, it might have been better to name specific examples for the other groups as well; even though I love the discussion, that has come from it.
My suggestions would be:
Nature: BN - BUND Naturschutz Bayern (local German organisation: BUND Conservation Bavaria)
People: Unicef
Animals: Peta

As even Greenpeace is not so stubbornly focused on nature as it might look like:

1 Like

I’m not so sure about Unicef. As part of the UN (which also contains e.g. the World Bank Group and the World Intellectual Property Organization) I see it more as a lobbyism-driven part of the system than a idealism-driven force for positive progress.
How about amnesty international instead?

Also like some previous writers I think Nature and Animals are so intertwined that I’d nominate one organization for both of them: WWF.

People who are vegan can also (deeply) care about: the environment, or their health, or human rights, but not by definition. Why not? Because that isn’t their primary interest. I was defining the primary interests not secondary.

My experience as being part of the vegan community denotes that the interests of someone who cares first and foremost for animals do not correlate with someone who first and foremost cares for the environment. I care first and foremost for the latter, not the former. So, ignoring my personal preference for taste, I am a proponent of eating chicken compared to cows (that’s just the two animals easiest available here and ignoring pigs who are a middle ground, YMMV). Well, even the friendliest vegans I know (who are being pragmatic and realise there are many people who won’t turn vegan or vegetarian) won’t agree with that suggestion. Do you see vegans first and foremost reducing their Co2 footprint? Do you see them deeply care about the plastic soup problem (though it does have some overlap with animal welfare and even human health)? Generally, a resounding: No! What they care about is reducing the consumption of animal products which can go very far (in the end, is fuel vegan? :wink: ). That by itself is going to drain you, as if you’re in an island doing your entire catering service yourself; inefficient.

There can be multiple examples just like for example there are many forms of discrimination in the world as well as interest groups who aim to defend specific groups such as minorities or oppressed groups (women, LGBT, POC, people with disability X such as autism just to name 4 examples (the last one applies to me though one can be member of multiple groups) which is all interests which are each specific sub-examples of the People group). But its better to have more generic examples. While I enjoy reading about local examples, if we want to form some kind of definition I recommend generic, international examples though since we are an international forum and it will create more understanding because generic examples will be more known.

I recommend examples which:

  1. Are international.

  2. Are recent / still valid.

  3. Are peaceful. We need to be careful with examples of direct action which can be explained as terrorism instead of activism. Compare: ALF, PETA, SCSS, and Greenpeace. Different goals, different means.

  4. Have a clean record / uncontroversial. That’s pretty much impossible though. Even WWF has spawned controversies.

  5. Generic instead of specific.

I agree WWF is a good example if you want to combine flora and fauna, but I recommend against combining the… two…

Speaking of which, flora and fauna are descriptive words but not specific examples, and not everyone’s fluent in Latin. The reason I brought it up is because the distinction between the two is classic.

Sure there would be!

There is no reason for people to be starving now… I know what you mean when you say no one would starve, but frankly, I’m betting capitalism would simply make a buck and up the price of veggies, as opposed to feeding people…

This is actually the opposite in the states. Most vegans and vegetarians would eat chicken before cow because cows are far more sentient than chickens…

Personally, I think we all have the capacity for both good and bad inside of us, and that our environment usually draws out one or another in us…

it’s not an exception, it’s how we should, and easily could produce all our food. Furthermore, even if I were completely vegan–which I’m not–as an organic farmer, I’d still have chickens for pest management, as well as fertilization.

Also in America the cows are still worse… Chickens are raised inside and there are very strict laws governing how much of their poo can wash out into water. Cow’s, since they are commercially raised outside, do not have such laws, and therefore add far more nitrogen to the water supply when compared to chickens…

Maybe not in the EU, but I was raised vegetarian, by a vegan and vegetarian, in a community with a lot of vegetarians, who work at a health food coop, and can tell you that’s how most people think here in the states that are coscious of such issues–at least here in Philly…

Again, that’s a very European mentality. My father has been vegan since the 70’s, and he would never exclude someone. If anything, those vegans and vegetarians who act all whollier than thou get ostracized because they want to do so to the newer people…

[quote="jfdhuiz6h]
Yes, it does, but

…this is an exception. I am talking about the status quo (ie. the default, modus operandus) of raising cows and chicken. Those pasture chickens have been handled kindly but they are not going to feed the world. I’ll dabble a bit more on that hereunder.[/quote]

Not where I live as much… You also have to remember, I live in a farm state, full of Amish people, with chickens running around their farms–some Amish people are super mean to their animals, but certainly not all. My vegan father checks out their farms periodically, as he is a purchasing manager…

I have no idea who those people are.

But, cows and pigs are a lot smarter than most people think, especially those who have never interacted with them.

Not the ones in Philly nearly as much…

Yea, so, this is just wrong to me, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Your biggest footprint–after kids, but that’s a silly argument if you’ve ever seen idocracy–is your food, regardless if it’s plants or not, unless it was raised without nitrogen based ferts, fungicides, and so on. The reason that list doesn’t have it listed in that manner is the argument I’m making hasn’t been proven scientifically, but to anyone who has studied soils, it’s pretty much a fact. The best argument we have

I’m not ignoring land use at all, and organic is _more_efficient. The yield is actually higher under stress, and the same under normal conditions once established. The quality of the product really has to do with the farmer, and is generally higher than conventional.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/organic-farms-produce-same-yields-conventional-farms

You see, when we apply nitrogen based fertilizers, fungicides–especially bad–herbicides, and other chemicals onto soil, we kill a lot biological life. When these biotic factors die, they biodegrade. In a normal system, they would be consumed by other life in the soil, and thus stay in the dirt. However, since the chems are present, those creatures are dead, and eventually these cells will outgas nitrous oxide, co2, and methane, thus greatly adding to climate change. This factor is never factored into how much co2 farming creates, and on the global scale that commercial ag is at, well, you get the point…

Got a link or name? I’d like to read it… doesn’t matter if it costs money, I have a login to a major university portal…

soy is not generally imported to America, it’s exported from us. We grow like a quarter or third of the world supply here… We actually export to China. It could be environmentally friendly, but the way we do it now, it certainly is not.

Some vegans eat eggs, and if the vegetarian eats dairy, there is no way in hell they have a smaller footprint. If they are not eating dairy, then yea, it really depends on what you eat…

*when I say vegans eat eggs, I guess they’re not really vegan anymore, however they don’t consume dairy or any other animal products other than honey. Essentially, they like eggs, and they were convinced that–as long as the hens are happy and outside–that they would eat them, because the eggs couldn’t ever become chickens, and aren’t anything elses food, and chicken kinda lay 'em no matter what as long as they are happy…

Haha oh yea, and I don’t like bugs. We actually tried selling them at the coop my dad works at, it did not work, not at all…

1 Like

Even in capitalism there are rules. The price is dependent on demand AND supply (among other things). If everybody was vegan supply would be much higher than the demand (btw. that’s not only true for food) so prices wouldn’t go up, but down.

You’re obviously hanging with the wrong vegan crowd. All vegans I know know that everybody who consumes less animal products is a win for the world.

2 Likes

Smaller compared to what footprint?
To someone eating meat besides dairy?
Sure as hell. :wink:

1 Like

Also:

Nope.
That’s like saying some muggles can do magic.

3 Likes

Being a part-time vegetarian I’m having great fun reading this conversation. I have to admit I ate yoghurt and a tosti with cheese today :flushed:, as well as fish which has hardly been mentioned in this thread so far.

I know only two vegans but I can second this. Cooking a vegan dinner because there was one vegan present was also great fun, especially when this vegan person came up with ingredients we’d never heard about to replace cheese and other dairy.

7 Likes

Point taken! :wink:

I’ll have to correct you there, @paulakreuzer. What you are describing is market economy. According to Wikipedia, capitalism is merely an ideology within a market economy system. I’d personally support a market economy over a planned economy, but I criticise capitalism.


@b-dubz Please clean up your post above (you can edit your post using the pencil symbol). It’s very hard to read and it seems that some parts were included by mistake.

3 Likes

No, no there aren’t. There is but one rule in capitalism–accrue capital. and it’s a lot better than the feudalism that came before, where the rule was make crap for that guy on a thrown over there and shutup. However, while it’s better than feudalism, the idea that it somehow self regulates is outlandish. Governments regulate it. That’s how it was set up to work, especially once we started making corporations.

Demand would be equally as high. Therefore, based on supply and demand, the price would be proportional to the supply, if not higher.

@Stefan

Sorry, haha I tried to type that way to fast… :sunglasses:

3 Likes

That doesn’t mean these rules don’t apply for capitalism.
They do apply until capitalism gets rid of the market and I agree with @b-dubz without government regulation capitalism would get rid of the laws of the market by building monopolies.

2 Likes

Well, it does a pretty good job of that even with government regulation, at least if the states are any example…

Well picking the states as an example for government regulation is like picking the states as an example for a fair electoral system. :wink:

1 Like

I mean, we are still the empire, at least for now. we dictate a lot of other countries policy through giving and denying aid… or militaristic arm twisting, either way…

You don’t think capitalism is undoing regulations in Europe? Doesn’t Brexit prove the opposite, since a lot of the reason they went through with it was in a biggoted attempt to get out of the open boarders regulation the EU insists on it’s members having?

1 Like

No, Brexit was a populistic and nationalistic appeal to go back to imaginary time where the gras was greener and the milk tasted better. Getting rid of european regulations might have been an important argument, but I don’t think we can take this as a proof for capitalism undoing regulations.

5 Likes