| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Charting [[countries]] is important because [[companies]] and their policies should be compared to the surroundings in which they operate for any [[comprehensive outcome]]. If a company does things better then the standard in the same country it should be made possible to point that out and not just look at global average stats or whatever. | | Charting [[countries]] is important because [[companies]] and their policies should be compared to the surroundings in which they operate for any [[comprehensive outcome]]. If a company does things better then the standard in the same country it should be made possible to point that out and not just look at global average stats or whatever. |
|
| |
|
| :Ecology standards should be the same globally. | | :Ecology standards should be the same globally. Social standards will vary based on culture. Let's start with that assumption. |
| ::But is that really applicable in practice?
| |
| | |
| :::Some basic ones must be the same, but that can only really happen by putting a high [[w:price of life]] on [[w:nature's services]]. Probably need to trash the [[IMF]] and [[WTO]] first.
| |
| | |
| :Social standards will vary based on culture. Let's start with that assumption.
| |
| ::Yes. Let's do
| |
| :::[[Ecological integrity]] though is independent of culture. [[Erosion]] and [[sedimentation]] and [[pesticide runoff]] will destroy ecosystems regardless of what anyone thinks or wants, and if it's acceptable to the people living in a place, that just means they're desperate and maybe stupid. You can't accept ecological horrors just because "social standards will vary". That's why they must be baseline economic issues everywhere, and certainly for these services. Some [[faction]]s may want ONLY to care about these, and that's fine, because there's a case to say that well-run ecosystems will take care of a certain number of people, and that's that, extra people will always be killed off by nature itself or by competition. That would be the [[w:Deep Ecology]] view. Other factions like [[Greens]] would say you can save more people if you follow some basic fairness rules. The [[Pinks]] might think these are basic and you have to have them first, before you can save anything natural. Though Greens argue back that if you wait until everyone's equal, there's nothing left of nature, and everyone's so poor they keep fighting, so it's equality of poverty.
| |
|
| |
|
| Now there are many ways to categorize all different questions: | | Now there are many ways to categorize all different questions: |
| Line 17: |
Line 10: |
| #Human rights | | #Human rights |
| #Workers' rights | | #Workers' rights |
| #Environmental protection | | #Environmental protection |
| #[[Ecological integrity]] is much more limited and basic and objective than so-called "environmental protection"
| |
| #Historical considerations | | #Historical considerations |
| #Geographical considerations - see [[ecoregion]] | | #Geographical considerations |
| #"[[Consumerium friendly|Consumerium friendliness]]" | | #"Consumerium friendliness" |
| | |
| -----------
| |
| | |
| We probably need a lot more help working on this page and its format. See [[Consumerium:intermediate page format]] which maybe should be [[Consumerium:intermediate product page]] while what is discussed above is [[Consumerium:intermediate country page]] format.
| |
| | |
| == Harvested ==
| |
| * 2020-09-09 | Harvested all [[w:European Consumer Centres Network]] offices' homepages from [https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-consumer-centres-network-ecc-net_en ec.europa.eu]
| |