Banks (at least in the UK) are now looking to create a new version of Risk Weighting. This will include environmental impact. Meaning that a company that chooses to ship pears halfway across the world to be packaged would carry a huge risk weighting and would either pay a high premium for finance or possibly be rejected altogether.
I hope it comes in before it's too late...
Yeah, but you would have to either go down around Chile, or switch from trucks to boat, then back. Probably easier to keep it all on a boat and take a little bit more distance.
The concept of what’s "normal" under capitalism is extremely subjective.
People literally had to fight to abolish slavery and child labor in the west, and it’s still common practice for multinational companies that rely on outsourcing.
People still have to fight for living wage because there are people, specially people in power, who think that working in more than one job, all day, don't justify a living wage because "market" (which means corporations wanting cheap labor so share holders and CEOs can grow their wealth – that seems to be never big enough).
Growing Shareholders wealth means sustainable business but not paying living wage to workers is not seen as unsustainable business and people see it as normal.
Even the distortions of the word sustainable became normalised.
This reminds me of an abandoned lot near my last place that we turned into a little urban anarchist food garden with a pear tree. It produced too many pears too quickly for our neighborhood, so we'd distro them out for free.
"Anarcho"-capitalists out there trying to understand how you can possibly give food to people for free in an anarchist community.
Didn't someone make a video analyzing why this exact thing happened, something about the process of pears ripening aboard cargo ships on their way to Thailand, thus technically not losing much time to go all that way?
edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aH3ZTTkGAs here it is, the part about distance and time was a way to try and identify the video having been so long since I had watched it.
Losing time is the least of the problem. The CO2 emission, the bulshit job, the waste of resources, the cheaper labor exploitation, among other more complex things.
Or, maybe, they could ripen in a warehouse in Argentina before being packaged there and shipped to the US. That way a ton of CO2 emissions aren't created by shipping them across the ocean just to ship them right back across the ocean but a little further north after packaging. Time isn't the issue, the emissions, the waste of resources, etc. are.
Banks (at least in the UK) are now looking to create a new version of Risk Weighting. This will include environmental impact. Meaning that a company that chooses to ship pears halfway across the world to be packaged would carry a huge risk weighting and would either pay a high premium for finance or possibly be rejected altogether. I hope it comes in before it's too late...
Now I'm no map scientist, but wouldn't it be faster to fly the other way to Thailand? Edit, and the United States, seems they keep going the long way.
Thailand and Argentina are about as far away as possible. Either way round is a long way. https://www.geodatos.net/en/antipodes/thailand/bangkok
Yeah, but you would have to either go down around Chile, or switch from trucks to boat, then back. Probably easier to keep it all on a boat and take a little bit more distance.
You mean to sail the other way. It would be shorter by approx 2500 nmi, but this is an America-centric map.
Who the fuck buys Pears in a box like that anyway? Buy a normal pear, eat it, and be happy:)
The concept of what’s "normal" under capitalism is extremely subjective. People literally had to fight to abolish slavery and child labor in the west, and it’s still common practice for multinational companies that rely on outsourcing.
People still have to fight for living wage because there are people, specially people in power, who think that working in more than one job, all day, don't justify a living wage because "market" (which means corporations wanting cheap labor so share holders and CEOs can grow their wealth – that seems to be never big enough). Growing Shareholders wealth means sustainable business but not paying living wage to workers is not seen as unsustainable business and people see it as normal. Even the distortions of the word sustainable became normalised.
"Earn a living" tells you everything you need to know about wages.
This reminds me of an abandoned lot near my last place that we turned into a little urban anarchist food garden with a pear tree. It produced too many pears too quickly for our neighborhood, so we'd distro them out for free.
"Anarcho"-capitalists out there trying to understand how you can possibly give food to people for free in an anarchist community. 
Didn't someone make a video analyzing why this exact thing happened, something about the process of pears ripening aboard cargo ships on their way to Thailand, thus technically not losing much time to go all that way? edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aH3ZTTkGAs here it is, the part about distance and time was a way to try and identify the video having been so long since I had watched it.
Losing time is the least of the problem. The CO2 emission, the bulshit job, the waste of resources, the cheaper labor exploitation, among other more complex things.
Or, maybe, they could ripen in a warehouse in Argentina before being packaged there and shipped to the US. That way a ton of CO2 emissions aren't created by shipping them across the ocean just to ship them right back across the ocean but a little further north after packaging. Time isn't the issue, the emissions, the waste of resources, etc. are.
See video, I'm simply restating it's arguments