Letter: Hidden cost of goods that travel too far
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The car has borne the brunt of criticism in the current transport debate. In terms of pollution it takes a great many cars to equate with one heavy goods vehicle. Because lorries are associated with industry and services their right of movement is rarely questioned. It is time the spotlight rested on those movements of goods vehicles which are a consequence of cheap fuel and low wages in distant countries.
There are grounds for concern when it is profitable for a clothing company in the North of England to shape trousers in its factory, then send them by road to Eastern Europe to be stitched, then return them to be distributed throughout the UK. Again, supermarkets pride themselves on offering wide choice - say, a yoghurt made in Greece with milk from Germany, alongside a virtually identical yoghurt made in the UK.
If such much-travelled goods bore a pollution tax which reflected the distance travelled and the mode of transport, we would begin to see shelf prices which represented the real cost in terms of damage to health and the environment. Overnight it would become economic to cut out and stitch the trousers in Yorkshire. Over a wide range of goods the economic advantage would tilt in favour of home-grown and manufactured products - good for employment and GDP.
Of necessity this would be an EU-wide pollution tax and opponents would doubtless condemn it as against the spirit of the Union in placing a damper on the free movement of goods. However, it would merely make goods bear the external costs and, at the same time, be a small but significant step towards a sustainable planet.
Professor PETER F SMITH
Chairman, Environment and Planning Committee
Royal Institute of British Architects
London W1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments