Valentine bouquets 'are bad for the planet'
I spend a lot of time checking several "news" sites each and every day. I am often quite surprised by the news of the day and today was no exception. The headline for the article caught my attention so I read on. Basically the Telegraph a Brittan newspaper is warning its readers to reconsider giving their special someone a bunch of flowers because the distance that the flowers have to travel to get to Britain is about 33,800 miles. The environmentalists, the article warns, are worried about the effects of the "flower miles" on global climate change from the carbon dioxide emitted from the airplanes that the flowers are shipped on. The article includes several quotes from people representing different organizations and interests. The article reports that the average Briton spends, on average, £39 (which converts to about $76). One of the quotes in response to that estimation is from a spokesman for the Flowers and Plant Association who said, "That's very little when you think what we spend on CDs, coffee and even lipstick." That got me thinking about the thoughts of A.C. Pigou. Pigou would more than likely disagree with the Flowers and Plant Association spokesman by suggesting that the average Briton spends far more on flowers than $76 which does not include the costs of the effects on the environment such as the CO2 airplane emissions that were mentioned in this article. Just a thought that the Telegraph brought up to show that even the simplest of traditions could "cost" far more than the price tags.
8 comments:
I think this is an interesting article that makes some very valid points that everyone may not think about when buying flowers for someone such as environmental costs. The Co2 from planes can be very high in environmental costs. I would not spend $76 dollars on flowers nor would I want anyone else to becuase the flowers will eventually die. I would rather save my $76 dollars and help the environment.
We all love getting things in the mail, at least I know I do. So if flowers cost more than just the price you paid for them, wouldn't anything else that has to be shipped cost more, too? Carepackages from home, books from Amazon.com, random goods from eBay, etc. would all be causing the enviroment harm because they are shipped using trucks or planes. I'm all for reducing CO2, but until we find some other fuel sorce or form of transportation, we will just have to deal with the hidden costs.
Melissa the $76 is in one year...two or three times a year sending flowers and that sounds just about right. When surfing the net for what the average American spends on flowers each year the most recent data I could find was in 2002 the average American spent $62.63 a year on "fresh cut flowers." I agree that money could be spent in a better way, but women love getting flowers...and men like pleasing women.
Sagan I agree. The reason that I focused on flowers was simply because the article used the upcoming holiday and a popular gift to demonstrate this idea. Furthermore, I am not sure exactly where your care packages from home are coming from but the article I posted talked about flowers that were being flown 33,800 miles...probably much farther than your home.
This is a great reason to boycott valentines day altogether isn't it? We now have a proper excuse to tell our loved ones if we don't get them anything! "Well, honey... The reason I didn't get you flowers or chocolate is because if I ordered that candy online, or even if I drove to the store to get it, I would have been emitting, or supporting the emissions of unhealthy pollutants into the atmosphere which many scientific analysts have proven to contribute to global warming." Easy, right?
As stated previously, all products that we like to have, have these hidden costs that we ultimatley overlook. But what everyone fails to think about are the less environmentally damaging solutions. For example, you still could get your valentine flowers, but try getting them from a local greenhouse. They will obviously be more expensive since they are grown under unnatural conditons, and if you do go to those ends to satisfy your valentine's flowery wishes, make sure to take public transportation there or drive your hybrid vehicle... Or even better buy flower bulbs from the greenhouse/grower which you can plant in the spring--together (assuming he or she has not dumped you!!)
Matt, I am certainly not an expert on flowers or valentines day for that matter, but I know that the local florists around Marietta, as well as many of the florists in Pittsburgh have flowers that are brought in from other parts of the country. I think that many are missing the larger issue here, what I took from this article was the idea that even the most simple of things we do in our society could in some way effect the enviroment and be involved with enviromental economics. What is important is to decide personally, how far your willing to take your concern? Buy no flowers at all? Buy less flowers? Maybe you decide to ignore the information and buy the same amount of flowers. Everything we do has ramifications, we still do them, a lot of times we have to...
I think that it is a good idea for Britain to take something small such as buying flowers into consideration of affecting the environment. But, I also assume that flowers are not the only costly thing shipped into Britain. Just like the Flowers and Plant Association said, we spend that much or more on other things that we do not need as well. So why just focus on flowers? Britain's Telegraph newspaper should be promoting saving the environment for things that are just as costly and harmful to the environment as flowers.
Post a Comment