🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
 
>In article <3pe45t$4m6@webe.hooked.net> jimbar@webe.hooked.net (Jim
Barrett)  
>writes: 
>    >Let me put it even more simply (being that I am ignorent and 
>    >tend toward simplicity). 
>    > 
>    >All else being equal it would be preferable to buy produce 
>    >that is grown closer to you than to buy produce that is grown 
>    >farther away. 
> 
>Why? If everything IS equal (price, quality, freshness, and so on), I'd  
>probably buy the stuff grown farther way, as obviously that is a more
efficient  
>producer and can get me the exact same quality food despite the higher  
>transportation cost -- and economically, if all things are equal, it is a 

>positive thing to buy from the more efficient producer. 
> 
> 
> 
 
 
If all else was equal the food grown father away would cost more due to the
transportation. I'm just trying to isolate the variable of transportation
and argue that if we can limit transportation costs while not raising other
costs we can benefit both economically and environmentally. 
 
I'm trying to state something that is easily agreed upon. The reason I want
to do this is that I think we often come into these discussions with the
idea that we need to take up sides and fight each other. I'm trying to get
beyond this with the supposition that we all are integrated in the same
environment and economic system. If we try to solve problems rather than to
fight each other we may actually make some progress. I want a healthy
economy and a healthy environment. I want to come up with ideas where we
can promote both simultaneously.  
 
: