“A week excuse” for a shameless bit of self-promotion.

“a rapid transition to cleaner (but less profitable) ways of generating energy and growing food. ”

Let me correct this for you:

“a rapid transition to cleaner (but more expensive) ways of generating energy and growing food. ”

There’s nothing at all in either theory or practice which says that low or non carbon methods of doing either will be less profitable. There are mountains of evidence to show that these new methods will be more expensive though. And more expensive production methods of course mean that we, the consumers, all get poorer…..

The only way Tesco can ever appease that green lobby is to shut down.

The first chapter looks great!

Not that it really upsets me, but isn’t it a bit odd to start turning your fire on your corporate allies (at least they purport to believe in the same things you do) as the entire green movement loses momentum?

I mean, whilst it might be purer not to have big companies with their resources and political clout involved in your campaigns, wouldn’t that just make you look like a bunch of extremist, unrealistic hippies? Which might be easy targets for people like me to ridicule.

That said, if your allies are companies like EDF and Tesco (anti-free-market profiteers) and RBS (not actually any good at banking, finance or much else) then maybe I can see your point in trying to disassociate yourselves.

Don’t blame Tesco.

Here’s what you don’t understand about global warming.

If you ask people if they want polar bears to drown and their great great grand children to be frazzled by the sun they answer they will give is that they don’t.

If you suggest they might be prepared to give up their organic, fair trade, Guatemalan asparagus tips to prevent these things happening, they will continue to buy them.

You see, deep down they don’t really believe in global warming- and that shows common sense.

5. Watchman

“Tesco anti-free-market profiteers”

In what way are Tesco anti-free market profiteers? The supermarkets operate on wafer thin tiny margins as opposed to one man band shops on the high street who operate on 15-20% margins. Pretty clear who the anti-free market profiteers are and it ain’t the supermarkets. That is why one hears so much whinging when the rent-seekers are competed away to oblivion. Your local bakers shop is profiteering more than the likes of Tesco.

So what if they drive producer prices down. The benefit is going to consumers as can be seen from margins. The only people who would care are rent-seeking farmers and shopkeepers who have been ripping-off consumers for years. Apparently, they believe the world owes them a living but unfortunately consumers do not agree. If farmers do not like the prices supermarkets are willing to pay well they can sell to someone else or produce more efficiently. Alternatively get out of the market and go and do something more productive. They should not whine that the market owes them a profit.

In 1971, the average family spent 21% of their income on food and non-alcoholic drink, they now spend around 10%. Where was that extra spend going in the past? It was going to rent-seeking shopkeepers and farmers. The supermarkets have redistributed it to consumers and the poorest have gained the most because they spend more of their income on food. Lefties should celebrate real redistribution by the supermarkets away from Tory farmers and Tory shopkeepers to the masses. Unless of course they are delusional enough to believe the poorest can afford to shop in the local deli.

Transporting food from other places in the world as opposed to producing it here with an even bigger carbon footprint. Even if everything you bought in your shopping was transported from another country just driving to the supermarket creates more carbon emissions than the transport of food. So get it delivered, get the bus or walk. Problem solved.

@7

“Lefties should celebrate real redistribution by the supermarkets away from Tory farmers and Tory shopkeepers to the masses. ”

Erm, no.

7
Yeh, Tesco are now acting as a corporate force for the redistribution of resources to the masses, no more paying for the rent included in the price of the small retailers. Tesco are now so saintly, so even though they import from all over the world, their carbon footprint is less than locally sourced products, truly the hand of god.
No need to look at their profit and loss account, their shareholders invest only from purely alttruistic motives, putting small shops out of business is not their intent, it is just an unfortunate consequence of their overwhelming generosity.
And I’ve also heard that the pork they sell comes from flying pigs.

@9 I’m not about to argue that Tesco are saintly but you appear to be implying that any firm that makes money must be evil. That really does not follow; the only times we need to be concerned that entities are making too much money, (in the general course of things), is if they are rent seeking or abusing a monopoly position.

So on the whole if a business is making plenty of money it is an indicator that they are doing things we find useful and should be applauded rather than condemned.

8. Mr S. Pill

@7

“Lefties should celebrate real redistribution by the supermarkets away from Tory farmers and Tory shopkeepers to the masses. ”

Erm, no”

I am surprised Mr Sugar Pill that you think that the Tory farmers should have their considerable bank balances swollen at the expense of the poor.

@ 9. jojo

” Yeh, Tesco are now acting as a corporate force for the redistribution of resources to the masses, no more paying for the rent included in the price of the small retailers. Tesco are now so saintly, so even though they import from all over the world, their carbon footprint is less than locally sourced products, truly the hand of god. ”

You appear to be saying things that I did not say. Tesco are neither saintly nor are they sinners. To think of retailers in those terms would be irrationally emotional. They are just a shop who if they do not attract customers will go out of business. A bit like every other shop even the ‘ small retailers ‘ who it might surprise you to learn do not exist to provide you a service. They exist to make a profit from their customers. Moreover, their profit margin is higher than the supermarkets.

Rent-seeking has nothing to do with rental of buildings etc. Small retailers who do not wish to compete are classical rent-seekers. They think the world owes them a living and you should pay for it.

Locally sourced products is a good thing and I would never suggest it is not. However, one can not assume just because a product traveled from another country that it has a higher carbon footprint than a locally sourced product. What matters is the energy input required to produce the product. For example, tomatoes grown in artificial conditions in this country will require a lot more energy than tomatoes grown in a warmer climate. Therefore, locally sourced will have a higher carbon footprint.

“No need to look at their profit and loss account, their shareholders invest only from purely alttruistic motives, putting small shops out of business is not their intent, it is just an unfortunate consequence of their overwhelming generosity.
And I’ve also heard that the pork they sell comes from flying pigs.”

Well gross profits or even net profits will not tell you a great deal. What matters is what profit margin they are operating at. If they were anti-competitive that some people like to suggest their margins would be high. Yet, the margins are low. So we have this ludicrous concentrating on gross profits as if it is a meaningful figure. The supermarkets are big companies so of course the number will be large. A firm who makes £1 billion profit at 5% margin is earning less profit than a firm earning £100,000 at 10% margin.

Investing in Tesco will not make an investor much money. They are a defensive stock that will not make much nor will an investor be at risk of losing much as their capital stands a good chance of being preserved. As I understand it they profit share with their employees and offer them shares at a discount. Go and ask the assistant in the idealised local greengrocers if the owner gives them a share in the profits.

How do they put small shops out of business? Do they send some heavies round with baseball bats? Is it the case that consumers stopped buying stuff from the small shop? Sounds like consumers put the small shop out of business. People going out of business because they have insufficient customers is a good thing, right? Maybe Jojo knows better than consumers themselves where they should spend their money and the small shop is more worthy, albeit self-evidently more expensive. Now where would this extra spend go in Jojo world and who would it pay it? Well the consumer has to spend more income and the small shop makes a higher profit but that is OK because they are more virtuous through being small. Call me cynical but that does not sound like good deal for the majority. We do care about what benefits the majority?

The thing I genuinely do not understand about the left and their obsession with supermarkets. The supermarkets were children of the Great Depression and grew popular through bringing food to families who did not have much income. Hardly any private sector firms have done more for consumers on low to moderate incomes and that is why they are successful. Yet, the left hate them and the inference is that generally richer producers are more deserving of the money than those on low to moderate incomes.

10 & 11
So you don’t do irony then.

Richard W @ 7

Lefties should celebrate real redistribution by the supermarkets away from Tory farmers and Tory shopkeepers to the masses.

Actually I agree with this statement. Don’t get me wrong, Tesco are no saints and many of their practices are shamefull and they can and do indulge in pretty restrictive practices. Having said all of that, many (but not all) of the complaints that surface regarding Tescos come from the arch ‘Capitalism is always good’ camp.

What I found sickening about Tony Blair with regard to the ‘plight’ of the farmers was the way he described Tesco el al having an ‘armlock’ on the farmers. Yet capitalism has an ‘armlock’ on everyone and Blair was pretty happy as some of the more wicked businesess drove people into poverty. Yet the farmers, we should all feel sorry for them? No fucking way. They hate free markets and they hate freedom of chioce, so we all should dig that little bit deeper to keep the feckless cunts?

I buy ALL of my food from Tesco or Adsa and I make a point of not buying British food if I can help it. In fact, I wish they would import more food and milk from France with labels on it.

@ 12. steveb

So no argument, Steveb? Hey, they are big firms so they must be evil, right?

@ 13. Jim

“Yet the farmers, we should all feel sorry for them? No fucking way. They hate free markets and they hate freedom of chioce, so we all should dig that little bit deeper to keep the feckless cunts?”

Exactly. The Liberals fought the Tories who were on the side of the large landowners throughout the 19th century on the issue of free trade and free markets. The farmers were certainly not fighting for protectionism in the interests of the masses. Now lefties line up behind them in a conspiracy against the public. Quite astonishing and shameful. I am by no means a market fundamentalist as sometimes they just do not work or have undesirable outcomes. However, I see no evidence that markets do not wok in relation to food. The difference is I am consistent and do not argue for free markets for the masses and protectionism and corporate welfare for the rich.

14
I can’t remember saying that I think all big firms are evil, I like to believe that I am more rational than that. In fact you have made a lot of unfounded comments about other posters and you clearly take yourself over seriously.
If you want to know my position here it is – Tesco, British farmers, Asda, the French producers can compete as much as they like, preferably ending with one or two large monopolies

Good for you, Steveb. You are correct, I should not have put words in your mouth. It just annoys me when people suggest large equals bad and idealise small retailers. If you were not inferring that I apologise. Monopolies are obviously bad. However, I doubt that is likely to happen with food as more people than ever before are selling food.

Clean energy, such as solar or wind power, or nuclear, is far cheaper than coal or oil energy (because the latter are subsidized by governments when it comes to cleaning them up–check out the cost of cleaning up a coal ash pit breach such as the one in the eastern USA a few years ago). Permaculture and or organic farming is considerably cheaper when done on smaller (i.e. not corporate) farms, because natural organic matter is employed as fertilizer and soil is not destroyed. This requires a change in the way that farming is done, and is not necessarily more expensive because the yields can be higher on small acreage farms as compared to the same acre on a large industrial farm. Simply, investors and big business are aware that a power change is at hand: power will move from large corporations to smaller farms and farmers OR it will move from the coal and oil industry to wind, solar and nuclear industry instead. This is the real issue, not cost, it’s all about who has the power.

Personally, I think stripping off the green-wash of big corporations who’s primary aim is to make profit, is just as important as individual action. Both need to happen, at the same time. I totally agree with Danny Chivers here. We can’t sit back and allow the greatest perpetrators of the problem to allow us to be manipulated into believing they are doing something to fix it, whilst they carry on making the problem worse behind the scenes. It’s worse than tokenism, it’s actually damaging and undermining to the real actions that are going on to make a difference to this world, and those who will and are being worst hit by climate change

Loulou @ 18

I agree with you here. I sort of agree with Pagar 6 too, if I understand him correctly, (if not, then apologise to him for the misrepresentation).

Tesco, et al care not a fuck for the environment. They only care that they are seen to be caring for the environment to placate the more gullible of their customers. Same as any other ‘campaign’ they link themselves to.

If these people really cared for the environment they would admit, where appropriate, that they contributed to organisations that have deliberately spread lies and misrepresented the science behind ‘Global Warming’.

When EDF, Tesco ‘Big Oil generally’ admit to funding Right Wing organisations idealistically opposed to taking action on Climate Change and they might have a point. I will always disbelieve everything they say on this and every other subject.

The bottom line wit these cunts is ‘money’ nothing else matters. That is fine, as far as it goes, but lets not pretend otherwise.

Thanks for all the comments everyone!

Dan Factor @ 3, Watchman @ 5 – This isn’t an issue that should belong to any kind of “green movement” or “green lobby” (whoever they are). I’m talking about climate change, an unfolding global catastrophe that is already killing 300,000 people a year and threatens millions of lives and livelihoods all over the planet, and is intrinsically linked to most of what happens in our societies and economies. It’s far too important to be left to “greens”, it’s of vital concern to all of us.

Tim Worstall @ 2 – Define “poorer”. If we do it properly, a low carbon world should mean a better quality of life for most people in the world. More efficient homes and properly-run, reliable transport systems mean everyone pays far less for energy and travel. A food system geared towards feeding people well rather than maximising shareholder profits could provide for everyone sustainably and affordably without trashing the climate or exploiting farm workers worldwide (Colin Tudge has done a lot of excellent research in this area). In the Global South, tackling climate change means people taking back control over their food, forests, lands and livelihoods, and getting access to renewable energy.

As Kasia @ 17 points out, fossil fuels are highly profitable to energy companies in the short term, while renewables have a longer payback. So unless we put pressure on the energy giants, they’re not going to switch voluntarily. Having RBS pouring billions of pounds of finance into the worst fossil projects definitely doesn’t help.

Also Watchman @ 5 – you’re right that companies like RBS, EDF and Tesco are no allies to anyone who wants serious action on climate change. They spend vast amounts of money lobbying against climate action, carry on with as many polluting practices as they can get away with, and then have the gall to sponsor an initiative like Climate Week in order to make themselves look climate-friendly.

All of the arguments about Tesco and other supermarkets – the polluting nature of their “just in time” transport policies, the fact that they lead to a net loss of jobs in any community where they appear, their negative impact on environmental and labour standards in farming, etc. etc. – have been well researched and presented at sites like http://www.tescopoly.org. Suffice to say that those apparently “cheap” supermarket prices come at a very high price for all of us.

And tbm @1 – Heh, so you noticed the slightly cheeky book plug! I’m afraid that when you’re a freelance writer working with a publishing co-operative with very little marketing budget, you have to take every opportunity for publicity that you can get…by the way, if anyone wants more information and references for any of the above arguments there’s a new climate change book you should totally check out. Ahem.

“Define “poorer””

“Less rich”. “Lower material standard of living”. “having less”. “fewer choices”.

Any of these making sense to you?

“More efficient homes and properly-run, reliable transport systems mean everyone pays far less for energy and travel”

At a cost, sadly. More energy efficient homes will indeed reduce energy costs. But they’ll raise building costs. There is no such thing as “a solution” you see, here are only trade offs. Similarly, a more reliable transport system….well, I don’t actually see how you can raise reliability without raising cost. You know, usually scrimping on cost grounds is what makes things unreliable?

“A food system geared towards feeding people well rather than maximising shareholder profits”

Umm, have you actually thought this through? Because there are two points here. One is “shareholders” and the other is “profits”. I’m just fine with the idea that instead of the capitalist division of capital providers from workers we might have more mutuals and coops, just fine with that. But profits are a very different matter. A higher income for farm labourers for example is a higher payment for, a higher profit upon, their labour.

Are you wanting to abiolish that as well? In which case, how is the whole system going to run?

And you don’t seem to be able to connect up your ideas.

“All of the arguments about Tesco and other supermarkets – the fact that they lead to a net loss of jobs in any community where they appear,”

Umm, so you want to get rid of the supermarkets then. But that makes usw, as I’ve referred to already, poorer. As you say, a supermarket leads to a loss of jobs in an area. That is, that we’re managing on funcition (the distribution of food and groceries) using less human labour. This means that there is surplus human labour which can go off and do something else. Tend the old, change babies, find the cure for cancer. So, we now have two tasks being done, not one, out of our available stock of labour. We are richer by this process, as we have two things not one.

You want to reverse this. That is, insist that we use more labour to do one particular task. This reduces the amount of labour we have to do other things. Thus we have fewer other things: we are, as I said, poorer.