buddhajeansabout 1 year ago
Thank you for a great post and there is room for any discussion on these complex problems . However, unless a change is taken there will be no poverty as there will not anybody left. In long-term thinking strategy for dealing global warming and achieve a safe future for coming generations, there will be someone to pay the cost and those who have the most lo loose is those who lose the greatest loss. Therefore, short term strategies as today where company owners and shareholders in 99% in any companies is based upon highest ROI (return of investment) in those companies they are investing in. Those people in a long term strategy will also be the biggest looser. We are in the middle of a very important paradigm shift, the global economy will not be market driven it will be nature driven. We need or are about to give the steering wheel back to mother earth and take place in the backseat of the drive into the future. It will be some hell of a drive but all native people and tribes as the Aboriginals, American Indians and Eskimos has been living with these principles. Land cannot be owned, never to take out more than needed of the nature. According to most Eastern Philosophy and in Buddhism is “the middle way” known as the only possible way to obtain enlightenment. Furthermore is the principle that no actions we take are independent but what I say or do in one place might have a positive or negative outcome elsewhere or even later. Karma is the law of cause and effect so as we do in particular in the wealthiest part of the world create vast amount of negative actions or negative karma this will of course bounce back on us sooner or later and then we will be the biggest looser. The hurricane Sandy who caused the flooding in New York is a good example of , people say or media talk about the global warming but in fact the Americans themselves created most of the flooding as they use 4-5 times a higher carbon footprint than those living in under developed countries. We in the wealthiest part of the world is having the largest benefit exploiting global common resources but will also be the biggest losers when it is no longer existing. You are right that the lowest costs of producing clothes are in your example Romania and not China. The biggest savings regarding carbon footprint is in general the lowest closer the production or harvesting is to the consumer.
When we talk about the poorest countries will drop 4-percent in a given year in GDP because we buy green products is most probably, and therefore, the wealthiest countries must give something in return for their benefits. To achieve this country must be willing to help those countries both financially but also with education and technology to make the manufacturers and industries to understand this and give them a better alternative by making this the best alternative from an economically perspective.
The interesting question will of course be; will we willing to pay for this or not? First of all, we need to develop Eco – compassion and Eco – awareness in a sustainable culture. This has to begin in schools and at an early stage in life. The more consumers who as ask for greener products will generate a whole new market for products who are sustainable, have a higher quality and harm the environment in the lowest way possible. I agree that to reduce our shopping is not enough, but if the consumers at the same time purchase green products and longer-lasting qualities and create a new market, those companies that are not a part of developing sustainable products will no longer have a large market to share. Thanks for a great post and a holistic view upon a complex problem. Happy Karma Yoga Kenneth founder of buddha jeans.
I recommend reading Sustainable development starts with basic values. http://www.buddhajeans.com/?p=11090 and Eco consciousness’s and sustainable design is to develop compassion http://wp.me/p1UV8C-2Al