“My master was so kind to me that I was always glad to do his bidding, and proud to labor for him as much as my young years would permit.” *
Update –“How we flyin’ today, massuh?
“My master was so kind to me that I was always glad to do his bidding, and proud to labor for him as much as my young years would permit.” *
Update –“How we flyin’ today, massuh?
A further note – I have made no comment on the effectiveness or morality of carbon offsets. I have questioned no one’s connection with reality, the depth of their intellect nor speculated on the state of anyone’s soul (though I thank Eliza for his well wishes). Nor have I accused anyone here of racism or paternalism. I have not and will not make this discussion personal. All I have done is point out that the implication in the second article linked here is that those doing purchasing carbon offsets are somehow compelling third word residents to do business with carbon offset companies, which in turn are forcing them to live in poverty requires an assumption that the farmers are not capable of recognizing their own best interests. How anyone interpreted from those statements that I believe that Indian farmers ought to choose one technology over another for my comfort is beyond me.
“If, in fact, they are being paid to use them, then they are deciding for themselves, for whatever reason, that this represents a better deal than diesel.”
Mark, you make it sound like these farmers are choosing between Ford and Chrysler. The article and me are pointing out (repeatedly!) that this is not the case. They are not being given a choice. There is no choice involved.
Some NGO for the UN comes along ands says “hey, we will give you these crappy treadle pumps and pay you a dollar a year to use them if you will give up diesel pumps”. What does the farmer do? He laughs at the stupid UN guy and takes the money, because he doesn’t HAVE a friggin’ diesel pump, Mark!
No money equals no fuel, no pipe and no engine.
He uses the treadle pump because its marginally easier than carrying buckets, not because its somehow a better deal than an actual pump. He still has to dig the channels by hand, because of course he has no pipes or fittings.
Why? Because yesterday I paid $63 Canadian dollars for EIGHT FEET of -used- four inch steel pipe. Wholesale, Mark. Made right here in Canada, at the Stelco pipe mill.
What will it cost after it gets shipped all the way to Water Buffalo Junction in India? Joe Farmer would be lucky to make $300 a year, can he afford my pipe? How about 2$ a gallon gas, wholesale at the dock in NYC? That’s how much it is.
A Ford pickup always represents a much better deal than a new pair of running shoes. Except when you can’t afford the shoes, never mind the truck.
Final word Mark. Poverty decides, they don’t. Carbon trading in poverty is nothing short of evil.
Phantom, we seem to be talking past each other. I don’t dispute that these farmers have limited choice due to their poverty. But if the carbon offset companies are giving them the opportunity to have a treadle pump instead of carrying buckets, then that is a plus for them. If it is encouraging them to give up diesel (which, if you check out the charity’s website, is what they’re trying to do) in favour of their pumps, and the farmer agrees, it is not up to anyone to tell him that it his not in his interest to do so. If they believe their life will be better with a gas powered mechanical pump, if it is within their means, they will choose one (and it is within the means of many, otherwise the programme wouldn’t be trying to convince them to choose otherwise). Relative poverty included, there are clearly choices articulated in this article: gas pump, no pump, foot pump. If, for whatever reason, the farmers see the foot pump as a superior option above either gas or bucket, (and I’ve read nothing to indicate they’re being compelled) then that is a simple business transaction, between two consenting parties.
It’s all well and good to say we should be sharing our technology with them (which, I might add, doesn’t take into account India’s own highly developed industrial, agricultural and technology sectors) but the fact remains we’re not. If someone were to show up giving away John Deere tractors to these farmers, I’ve no doubt that no amount of treadle pumps would entice them to turn them down.
I repeat, I have made no comment on the morality or effectiveness of carbon offsets. All I am saying is that in order to accept that those Westerners participating in schemes like those described in the second article are exploiting the poor requires that one accept that the poor are somehow unable to recognize their own best interests.
I had never thought of GW in terms of the pre- Martin Luthur Catholic Church.
Interesting analogy.
So now that Harper has thrown opposition to the foolishness under the train, who will be Canada’s Martin Luther?
BKG
Unable to -protect- their best interests Mark. Difference is large.
Buying carbon credits is like buying snake oil and who wants to oil a snake?
Phantom: Yes, I agree the difference is huge, though Indians have a long and proud history of standing up for themselves, both individually and collectively. Fortunately, as there is no indication in this article that the farmers’ interests are being threatened, that’s not an issue. The idea of giving up a gas pump in favour of manual labour may seem perverse, but in the absence of an evidence or allegation of ocompulsion, I’ll trust the man on the ground’s judgement of what’s best for himself and his family over that of an Internet columnist in London.