What is the real cost of shipping a container load of toys from Hong Kong to Los Angeles? Or a case of apples grown in New Zealand to markets in North America? And what is the true cost of that fridge humming in your kitchen, that car purring on the road or that steak sizzling on the grill? Practically every one of the products we buy in the global marketplace is undervalued because the environmental costs haven’t been taken into account. As a result, every one of the billions of purchases we make every day pushes the world a little deeper into the cosmic red.
But what if we were to implement this simple idea: true cost?
We calculate the hidden costs associated with products – what the economists nonchalantly refer to as “externalities” – and incorporate them. We force the price of every product in the global marketplace to tell the ecological truth.
We start with the little things: plastic bags, coffee cups, paper napkins. Economists calculate these eco costs – say it’s five cents per plastic bag, ten cents per cup and one cent per napkin – then we just tack that on. We’re already doing that with the various eco-fees and eco-taxes included in the price of tires, cans of paint and other products. But now we abandon the concept of ancillary fees and taxes and implement straight true-cost pricing.
Inevitably, your palate will submit to your wallet.
Then, over a ten-year period, we phase in true-cost eating. We raise the price of avocados from Mexico and shrimp from China to reflect the true cost of transporting them long distances. And we estimate and add on all the hidden costs of our industrial farming and food processing systems. That burger at McDonald’s will cost you more, so will most meats, produce and processed foods. You can eat whatever you want, but you’ll have to pay the true cost. Inevitably, your palate will submit to your wallet. Processed, mega-farmed and imported foods become more expensive as the cost of organic and locally produced food goes down. Bit by bit, purchase by purchase, the global food system heaves toward sustainability.
Then we phase in the true cost of driving. We add on the environmental cost of the carbon our cars emit, the cost of building and maintaining roads, the medical costs of accidents, the noise and the aesthetic degradation caused by urban sprawl and maybe even the military cost of protecting those crucial oil fields and oil tanker supply lines. Your private automobile will cost you around $100,000 and a tank of gas $250. You’re still free to drive all you want, but instead of passing the costs on to future generations, you pay upfront. This would force us to reinvent the way we get around. Demand for monorails, bullet trains, subways and streetcars would surge. We would demand more bike lanes and pedestrian paths and car-free urban centers. And gradually a paradigm shift in urban planning would transform urban life.
True-cost pricing is fraught with daunting, seemingly insurmountable problems. For conventional economists, it’s a frightening concept that would slow growth, reduce the flow of world trade and curb consumption. It would force us to rethink just about every economic axiom we’ve taken for granted since the dawn of the industrial age. It could turn out to be one of the most traumatic economic/social/cultural projects that humanity has ever undertaken. And yet … and yet … the idea of a global marketplace in which the price of every product tells the ecological truth has a simple, almost magical ring to it. It makes sense, it feels right, and it’s totally nonpolitical. It’s the one big idea that – if we are able to agree on it, implement it and muster the collective self-discipline to sustain it – could pull us out of the ecological tailspin we’re in and nudge this failing experiment of ours on Planet Earth back onto the rails.
— Kalle Lasn

![A Tahrir Moment on Wall Street [Portuguese] A Tahrir Moment on Wall Street [Portuguese]](http://www.adbusters.org/files/magazine/teaser/flag_portuguese_guardian.png?1317158969)














I don't put much stock in
I don't put much stock in imagining a new set of rules imposed from on high. I do think as the latest news on climate change hits (6 degrees C. it is!) people may start asking if they really should try to live smaller, maybe beginning with eating lower on the food chain. I'm not a rabid vegan. I have a clear plan non-cooks can adopt and scale their eating down to something the planet could manage. It's not a hair shirt and it will save them money.
Lynn Shwadchuck
Canada
http://www.10in10diet.com/
Diet for a small footprint and a small grocery bill.
funny, you get pretty much
funny, you get pretty much the same response from every conspiracy theorist who gets called out on their thinly-veiled anti-semitism. "I'm only pointing out facts, honest!" The upshot, of course, is that Jews are somehow "behind" the crisis, to "blame" for it, because they're "not one of us". Sorry, this isn't Iran, buddy, so take your prejudice elsewhere.
The old canard that Jews "run" or "profit from" the Federal Reserve has been around for years, prominent in militia movement circles and on the far-right. See this old article from the ADL:
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/fed_intro.asp
All the people you pointed out are also men, but you didn't say "male-controled central banks". They're white, but you didn't say "white-controled". You didn't say "capitalist". No, you chose to say Jews, knowing full well what that conveys.
Idiot.
everythings exported, can
everythings exported, can only afford to import cheap crap, food qualities down, add any cheap chemical to increase crop productivity, bicycles and rubbish cars. money is devalued below black market goods ...
er...havent we done this before?
Each newborn western child
Each newborn western child would cost two million dollars.
"A shift in consciousness is
"A shift in consciousness is a shift in biology" - Chopra
True Cost Economics is a spark to the shift.
True Cost Pricing Structures discussion is going to ramp to critical mass soon.
Brilliant and about freaking time we spoke about the big picture.
Chill.
nice idea. would it work in
nice idea.
would it work in the real world? not really, people would be so pissed.
would be nice to put these costs on every product so people are aware of the 'true cost'. therefore causing environmentally minded people to purchase products with a lower 'true cost'.
then eventually forcing competitors to lower the 'true cost' of their own products.
maybe...
Energy tax, as proposed by Al
Energy tax, as proposed by Al Gore, instead of income tax would be a move in this direction.
This book is recommneded for
This book is recommneded for anyone interested in going further into the topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Undercover_Economist
A wonderful idea, however, it
A wonderful idea, however, it is near impossible to assign a price to the externality. How do you put a price on eroded soil, on polluted water? Essentially, it comes down to energy units provided by the sun, the basis for all energy. If we're able to put a price on that, then maybe we're getting somewhere (I think there was some work being done in this field at the University of Florida but I'm not positive - anyone know?)
We would use the price it
We would use the price it would cost to clean the polluted water along with any problems it may have caused, and replace the erosion with new soil, or what it would cost to make the soil usable once again.
glad you noticed... but take
glad you noticed... but take it easy please... icorporate the ideas, cooperate ... why be contrarian to the whole of underappreciated "ecological value" if we can not agree on some of the icalculable particulars.
Mind you "sound money without FED" is still money and is just as ephemeral a tool for progress as ,say, Tobin tax. These are surely necesarry steps in good direction.
But eventually we need to phase out money altogether. Since any form of it will eventually create surplus, capitalists who persist in leasure while exploiting less affluent. A vicious cycle of corruption will percist 'cause it's intrinsic for any type of monetary system.
For this century we need a society functioning on the basis of a different kind of competition. Not for means but ideas. Spirituality combined with technology is the way forward and out of this mess.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay
Totally agree! As once
Totally agree! As once quoted "Hegemony or Survival"
Lloyd, sometimes you make
Lloyd, sometimes you make insightful comments on Adbusters article but most of the time they're surrounded by crazy ramblings which overpower any sane social commentary you are trying to provide.
there's nothing particularly
there's nothing particularly disturbing about the fact that money is created out of thin air. What we call money refers to a variety of functions and only has meaning within a certain series of social relations.
The idea that economic problems will be solved by "sound money" or a gold standard (or whatever your hobby horse is, idk) is an illusion.
capital is _built_ on
capital is _built_ on credit/debt. Tinkering around with the money supply won't change the fundamentals - production for exchange, not use; generalized commoidty production and wage-labor; externalization of enviromental costs; exploitation of labor - all stem from the underlying economic system, not the form of currency. In fact, the form of money arises from the nature of the commercial system.
Oh hai, I think you're in the
Oh hai,
I think you're in the wrong place. Infowars is that way -------->
kthxbai
(; ha-ha nice one
(; ha-ha nice one
lulz
lulz
Alex Jones is a noisy loon.
Alex Jones is a noisy loon. But, srsly, the Lyndon LaRouche line against the Federal Reserve conspiracy is misplaced. What you need is a critique of capital.
in due time
in due time
While the idea is nascent,
While the idea is nascent, let's look at its potential. Forgive the fuzzy language about how all of this will exactly happen and remember that Martin Luther King said "I have a dream," and didn't talk about how that dream would come to reality. This is an idea that deserves credit for its creativity, ie. you didn't think of it, and if you think you can do better, step the hell up and be a leader. We need you.
One thing I didn't
One thing I didn't understand; with "true cost" the idea is that you pay for the ecological damage you cause, but where does the "extra money" go? Is it used to plant forests or something that benefits the environment? If not, most things will only become more expensive, and i.e. "a tank of gas will cost you $250" means that the oil company only gets richer.
I too think the only system that could change the way we live and consume has got to involve economy. If products damaging the environment become more expencive, and you have to pay for their damage to the environment, we'll choose less damaging products. For instance, this would force the car producers to develop low emission cars and new technology.
"For instance, this would
"For instance, this would force the car producers to develop low emission cars and new technology." This has already happened and it's not that we don't have efficient enough cars or new technology. Cars are as efficient as they can be with the automotive technology of now. Hybrids don't do much to help and are nothing special no matter how they are branded or advertised. It's all a part of our lifestyle. Blah blah. But cars are not our problem and haven't been for a while. Especially if you do as the article says and look at TRUE COST. Hybrids are more expensive to produce which points to factories pollution and all that other stuff that goes with manufacturing goods.
What can the average person
What can the average person do to promote true-cost pricing?
"Abolish fake money that this
"Abolish fake money that this created by Jewish led central banks"
oh, get the fuck out. You LaRouche loons are all the same. It doesn't take long for your true opinions to surface.
If there are mods on these threads, please ban this guy.
oh, he didn't mean "abolish
oh, he didn't mean "abolish fake money" he meant abolish all money. Please, don't discourage free thought here. banning people would make this website...corporate haha...
so it's okay to peddle
so it's okay to peddle anti-semitic lies?
I'm not peddling anti-semitic
I'm not peddling anti-semitic lies...that I'm sure of. And as for Lyndon LaRouche, I'm not familiar with any of his writings. In fact, I don't even know who he is. You "hipsters" are all alike...you claim to be different but in being different you are all the same....victims of a culture that you refuse to challenge. Dare to challenge the theories that people say not to!
As for my "lies"...I challenge anyone here to tell something I've said that is false!
I really liked an underlying
I really liked an underlying proposition in this article: namely, that people who demand products should have to address the "true cost" of each of these products. Epic restructuring of our global marketplace to the side... Let's say that we can come up with a loose method for determining these "true costs" today... What if we required retailers/producers to post a product's "true cost" on the product? Similar to the way that the FDA requires food producers to post a product's nutritional value.
This could go a long way in continuing the conversation that could lead to completely restructuring the cost/price structure of the global marketplace. Not to overlook the immediate benefit of giving well-intentioned people the resources to make wise consumer decisions immediately.
There is a large body of
There is a large body of study and many organisations that try to calculate the true costs. I don't know about US legislation or practices, but for example, in French law, local authorities have a legal obligation to respond to citizens' rights to trasport at a "financial, economic, social and ecological cost acceptable to the collectivity".
This in turn implies a legal obligation to calculate these costs for divers policy scenarii and choose and implement the "cheapest" scenario. They use standard references for these calculations (which prove for example that the motor car is the most "expensive" form of transport when all these costs are taken into account). This is an ever-closer approximation of the "true" cost.
A "carbon tax" such as already exists in Sweden, has just been implemented in France. I innocently thought was going to bring us closer to this kind of "real" costs in the shops that you refer to and that ecologists have been calling for for years.
I was wrong, it's an unweildy, ill-formulated, unfair and ultimately unjust tax which I fear will have pervesre effects, but it seems that's as far as we're able to go for now. Or is it ?