The fast food/beverage industry has made billions, and established itself in just about every corner of the world thanks to its focus on low cost, standardized products which instantly satisfy hunger and thirst. It's another thing altogether that their offerings are not exactly the healthiest choice, with links to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other "rich country disorders" that are fast overtaking traditional diseases globally. Large corporations that are trying to drive down costs would automatically reject any move to introduce options that deviate from their model. Hence the title of this blog - would McDonald's be willing to sell you celery sticks instead of fries? Perhaps - but they would likely offer it at double the price, thanks to a warped cost model that ends up penalizing those who try to choose what would seem to be inherently easier products to make. Never mind fast foods - there is a disconnect when it comes to basic products like meat and vegetables - how else would you explain why a pound of lettuce costs more than a pound of beef? On a calorie basis, the difference would be almost a hundred fold!
The same skewed economics exists in the energy industry, where the dominant paradigm of fossil fuels has made the development of alternatives next to impossible without large subsidies (which are immediately decried for being not consistent with the principles of a free market). The cost of delivering those fuels to a convenient location down the street - from the military presence in "sensitive" locations around the world, to the environmental pollution resulting from use of the fuels - is not paid for by the consumer, but ends up being paid for by society in general. The option to use a different source of energy is either not available, or is so costly and inconvenient that one automatically defaults to what is provided.
As millions of inhabitants of developing countries cross into the realm of the middle class, they will begin to use more and more energy to maintain their newly attained lifestyles. But it would be wishful thinking to believe that they have exercised any kind of informed choice. One would get a very different outcome if the person consuming that energy could pick and choose from a menu of available options - rather like a meal. After all, if we stress the importance of a balanced diet on healthy living, why not the importance of balanced energy choices?
The same skewed economics exists in the energy industry, where the dominant paradigm of fossil fuels has made the development of alternatives next to impossible without large subsidies (which are immediately decried for being not consistent with the principles of a free market). The cost of delivering those fuels to a convenient location down the street - from the military presence in "sensitive" locations around the world, to the environmental pollution resulting from use of the fuels - is not paid for by the consumer, but ends up being paid for by society in general. The option to use a different source of energy is either not available, or is so costly and inconvenient that one automatically defaults to what is provided.
As millions of inhabitants of developing countries cross into the realm of the middle class, they will begin to use more and more energy to maintain their newly attained lifestyles. But it would be wishful thinking to believe that they have exercised any kind of informed choice. One would get a very different outcome if the person consuming that energy could pick and choose from a menu of available options - rather like a meal. After all, if we stress the importance of a balanced diet on healthy living, why not the importance of balanced energy choices?
No comments:
Post a Comment