More Flatulence from the Global Politicizers

     Recent attacks on agriculture, especially meat production have focused on the "input-output" relationship in production.  By this I mean that calculations are being put forward that attempt to measure the output of meat production in terms of its use of water or energy or greenhouse gas producing inputs (and of course outputs, especially cattle flatulence). 

     When they focus on meat, most of the time these "studies" are driving toward implicating the U.S. as a disproportionate producer and consumer of meat and therefore a disproportionate contributor to global warming and a disproportionate user of global energy supplies etc.

     One of my economist friends and I have an ongoing discussion about this as it seems that the notion of efficiency is never mentioned in these "input-output" focused studies.  By this I mean that politicizers of this issue fail to account for the fact that those countries or regions which can use the fewest resources to produce agricultural products should produce a disproportionate share of global supplies as a means to conserve limited global resources.

     The Sierra Club has recently re-launched some of its illogical earlier attacks on the pork industry in the United States in terms of the industry's exports.  The attack suggests that greedy corporations in the United States are producing far more pork than the United States consumers can eat, and in chasing global demand, the industry is "sending the pork to Japan and leaving us with the manure" or some such phrase. 

     It can't have it both ways if it truly cares about both the local and the global environment rather than its escalting anti-capitalist mission.  The "disproportionate use" of world resources by the United States is largely about the most efficient and least polluting use of world resources to supply the U.S. and the world with low cost, input-saving, goods, food and services. 

     There is nothing more basic in all of economic theory than the notions of comparative advantage and trade.  These principles, first clearly articulated by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" (published in 1776 by the way) describes how everyone is better off when specialization takes place, based on efficiency and then trading develops to ensure the availability of a diverse set of products and choice.  Poverty is the endproduct of self-sufficiency and isolationism, (see North Korea for more details).  Another noble reason to remember and celebrate 1776.

     We'll take a look at some of these "studies" in the next few weeks.